Talk:Oldest people/Archive 5

New page: unconfirmed oldest people

I'm considering writing a page unconfirmed oldest people. Basically, everyone currently on the oldest people list has lived in the era of modern record-keeping. However, we only have suppositions and indirect claims for people born before modern records were as ubiquitous as they are today. The page would include historical and mythological figures, as the distinction is fuzzy at best. Thoughts? samwaltz 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

We already have longevity claims and longevity myths. Longevity claims are those that are within the realm of scientific possibility (115-130) and longevity myths are those outside the realm of scientific possiblity (130+). Add away on those pages, if you wish...NOT HERE!!!R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Claims" are claims that are not proven. "Myths" are claims that have been proven to be wrong. Since a lot of stuff hasn't been proven that are on the "myths" page, I think they should be moved over to the claims page. I think there should be an article for claims that have been proven wrong (Longevity Myths), an article for longitivity claims that have not been proven (Longevity claims) and an article for claims that have yet to be proven and are in the time period in which records are available (like the suggested Unconfirmed oldest people article.) For example, the Biblical account of people living over 900 years old has been claimed but not proven. If it is not proven, it is not a myth, but a claim. If someone was born in 1885, for example, and claims to be living in 2007, and hasn't been recogonized by Guiness or have any records available, this person would be placed on the Unconfirmed oldest people article. Once anything is actually proven to be wrong, they can be placed on the Longevity myths article. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

AMR, Your idea as presently presented is very, very bad and appears to be a back-door attempt to sneak religion into a scientific discussion. What we currently have are:

A. Oldest People...claims to age 110+ (or oldest living if earlier eras) that have been scientifically validated.

B. Longevity claims...unvalidated claims (unconfirmed) within the realm of scientific possibility, but more likely to be false than true

C. Longevity myths...claims that are scientifically impossible to be true, and are advanced for religious (mythical) reasons.

The Methuselah claim is a lonevity myth. To try to say that the Methuselah story is "not a myth, but a claim" is akin to saying "evolution is only a theory, not a fact." The FACT of the matter is, even the Bible says "not to give heed to confusing myths and genealogies" and it should be noted that the extreme ages claimed for the early Biblical patriarchs were meant to be taken allegorically, not literally. For example, Methuselah means "when he dies, it will come" (the flood). God's letting Methuselah live to the oldest age ever showed that God had given man every chance to repent of his sin before judgment came. It also shows that since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and "in that day you will surely die," therefore Methuselah had to die at less than 1,000 years for the Biblical propechies to be fulfilled. None of this has anything to do with the proven human life span. It's like saying "the oldest elf from Lord of the Rings is 3,000 years old." The realms of science fiction and religion are totally outside the realm of modern-day scientific inquiry.R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also that one need not debunk a 'claim' to age 150. Since it is scientifically impossible, it is untrue by definition. No need to check. Only claims within 115-130 years (the twilight of possiblity) really need to be checked.R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But, has the the ages of of these Biblical people been proven false? No. "It can't be proven, so it's false" is not true. Calling it a myth affends people. If someone in a fictional story lives a very long time, that's fiction, not non-fiction. If the Bible is fiction, I want to see proof. The Biblical people's longevity are not myths, but unproven claims. Perhaps we could have two pages:

• Longevity myths - Longitivity myths that have been actually proven to be false.
• Unconfirmed oldest people - Broken down into modern claims, and claims from long ago that are unconfirmed, hence the name of the article.

Unless new research has proven the Biblical ages to be false, they don't belong in Longevity myths. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

USER AMK152, you once again confirmed that your problem here is that you are trying to mix 'religion' with science. This is Wikipedia, not the Bible. It is written for everyone, not just Christians. Also, you misunderstand a lot of concepts.

First: a myth need not be proven false to be a myth. Do we need to prove that Zeus doesn't exist to call ancient Greek stories of gods myths? Of course not. In fact, the whole point of religion is that you cannot prove it false, because it is not based on science but on 'faith' or 'belief.' In other words, you can always believe what you will no matter what I say. However, that is your belief; it is not general, common knowledge. Second, some people have misinterpreted the use of the word 'myth'. Go back to myth. The use here is more a mixture of the first and second than simply the second. The story of Methuselah is a story intended to explain things, such as God was merciful and waited a long time before sending the Flood.

Third, there are stories in Hindu mythology that claim ages such as 24,000 years. To pick out just Judeo-Western cultural stories is discrimination.

Fourth, the whole purpose of this article has to do with modern times.

Fifth, we can infer than any claim to age 150 or greater ever made has been false, as it has never been demonstrated that a human being can survive more than 122 years...if you knew the odds of surviving to 969 (age 120 is 10 billion to 1. Now times 10 billion by 849 to get your odds) then you wouldn't even be raising this issue.Ryoung122 10:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not just Scientists who read Wikipedia. Just because someone lived to 122 doesn't mean that is the limit. The thing that bothers me is calling Biblical people's ages 'myths'. The Bible mentions 30 people who lived past 122. At least 9 of those people were under age 150. I looked at A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false on the myth article, says that a myth is something that is false. I read those definitions and it basically says that a myth is something that is false, but a myth is a legendary story, but a myth is soemthing that is false, but myth = false. So, if these longevitys are called "myths" and myths are said to be "false," but some people say that these longevitys are true, others disagree. Also, if "myths" are referred to "religious stories" how can this be neutral? I know that these ages are for modern times. Simply because "Scientists" don't have enough "proof" of longevitys of long ago. They are not myths. Probability is not a factor here. So, stuff that hasn't been proven are not myths/false. Stuff that have been proven wrong are myths. In order to nuetralize the situation Longevity myths has to be renamed. But to what? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words: "Moses lived to 120" is a longevity claim because it is possible to be true, if unproven. "Methuselah lived to 969" is a longevity myth because there is no doubt, scientifically, that such an age is false from a literal standpoint, but still may be seen as an allegorical or representative age.Ryoung122 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So essentially you're saying that the word "myth" has to be blotted out of existence, just to satisfy your admittedly unscientific, religious viewpoint? I think not.Ryoung122 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A "myth" is something that is "false." These biblical longevitys are not false; they are unproven, except for the Bible. In other words, these longevitys are not myths; perhaps an article can be dedicated to religious longevity. Did you know that the word "claim," "claims," "claimed", etc. are mentioned 57 times in the Longevity myths article, excluding the top sentence, template, and "disclaimer" link at the bottom of the page? And did you know that "myth" is mentioned only 10 times throughout the entire article? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Longevitys" isn't even a word in English. Should you be presenting yourself as an expert when you can't even spell or use the word "longevity" correctly?

Also, scientifically most religious beliefs are false...it is only due to societal pressure that rational-minded people are forced to accept such irrational concepts as flying bunnies, idol sacrifices, etc. Because many choose to maintain the fiction of religion (i.e. religion is the 'drug' of the masses because the intellectual answer, that we will die, is simply not what most people want to hear) or even tradition, you'll see things like Santa Claus on the evening news. That doesn't mean Santa exists. One reason religion should not be mixed up with this is the issue of corruption, longevity has no meaning and is irrelevant if defined by what we want to believe. After all, Jesus promised eternal life, so by that definition, the 'world's oldest person' (aside from Jesus, who is also God the Father) would be the first person who believed in Jesus (and is thus still alive today).Ryoung122 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just because someone lived to 122 doesn't mean that is the limit."

Um, no one said anything about 122 (122.45) being the limit. Neal 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that the Methuselah myth is false according to scientific standards. OK? From a secular viewpoint, the story is only important from a mythical perspective, which it is...a story made up to explain something then not understood.

Today, with modern scientific methods, we can say with certainty that even though age 122.45 may not be an unbreakable record, it is a stretch to even consider '150' a remote possibility.

As for your comment about the word counts in the longevity myths article...the article is still organized mainly according to the ideation of the longevity myth, whereas the longevity claims article is organized mainly according to the examples of longevity claims (with a short ideation section).

For example, if Cruz Hernandez claimed to be 128, that's a longevity claim because it's unproven, but also her age does not carry with it religious connotation or is used to support that (although it was used for nationalist mythmaking). The story of Methuselah is not only unproven on modern scientific standards, but it is used as a longevity myth.Ryoung122 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that "scientifically most religious beliefs are false," that's your belief, but there's no fact. Prove to me that all this is false. I said 122, as I was referring to the age in years, not the precise age in years and days. Not many people go around saying they're 35.6, 88.3 or even 29.384. What is in the Bible is true, but yet there are people who disagree with this statement. If the Bible is false, there would be proof, right? And we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, if there is no proof, how do you know this is false? And yes, Methuselah's age is not proven. But if something is not proven, it does not mean it's false. Therefor, it is not a myth. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not my belief, that is a FACT. Fact. Fact. Also, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, not the other way around...prove to me that Methuselah lived to 969...prove that the Bible is true...

The FACT of the matter is, the Bible coined a word..."faith"...to describe what it takes to believe something without evidence. That's all you need to know. The Bible is in the realm of 'belief,' not 'fact'. It says so itself.

Methuselah's age is a myth because it fits the definition: a story meant to explain things that was constructed in religious terms, but for which no modern evidence is available to prove it and which seems impossible based upon the presently-known laws of science.Ryoung122 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:AMK512. You said that Bible is true. Let's just start on a basis of how to view statements. Everything by default is unknown until proven true - not, the other way around. So you can have 2 mentalities:

1.The Bible is true, until proven false.

Or.

2.The Bible is false, until proven true.

Since you said you believe the Bible is true, that means we have to "prove" to you the Bible is false. And in many cases, it's irrelevant to you, because you'll just ignore present data. If the Bible said the world was created in 7 days, so that the story of Adam and Eve was some 6,000 years ago, then you'll "ignore" scientific fata that says the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, won't you? Neal 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a major Evolutionism vs. Creationism arguement. I can see where this is going. This arguement has gone on for many, many years and there hasn't been any agreement. The Bible says that the Bible is true. It is a matter of faith and once a person has faith, they will understand the complex nature of the spiritual aspect and they'll know that the Bible is true. Those who have faith will only understand why the Bible is true. Ryoung, you said:

"Longevity claims are those that are within the realm of scientific possibility (115-130) and longevity myths are those outside the realm of scientific possiblity (130+)."

So basically what your saying is, Moloko Temo should be moved from the claims to the myths article. And, if still alive, Habib Miyan will be moved there on May 22, 2008. Maria Olivia da Silva, if still living will also be moved to the myths article on February 28, 2010.

So your saying, as soon as someone hits their 130th birthday, they no longer claim an age, but it is automatically false. No. They are all claims. Your just separating different levels of claimed longevities by calling some might be true and calling the others false. These articles should be merged together, as they are all "claimed" ages. Or, the Longevity myths article should be renamed to something like "Extreme longevities" or "List of people with extreme longevities" or "Longevity claims (130+)" and renamed the current claims article "Longevity claims (115-130)." Also, if someone has a claimed age of 110-114, why arn't these claimed supercentenarians listed on their list? Also, there are three people under the age of 115 listed on the Longevity claims article. Where would Ruby Muhammad be listed, since her age is claimed and she is a claimed supercentenarian. I'm not saying let's make a list of people who claim the age of 109. Only those who claim an age of 110 or more should be on a claims list. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User AMR, please bring up ONE point per discussion. However, since you insist, I'll have to answer all the disparate 'points' you bring up.

1. Creationsim vs. Evolution:

Let's not get into a major Evolutionism vs. Creationism arguement. I can see where this is going. This arguement has gone on for many, many years and there hasn't been any agreement. The Bible says that the Bible is true. It is a matter of faith and once a person has faith, they will understand the complex nature of the spiritual aspect and they'll know that the Bible is true. Those who have faith will only understand why the Bible is true.

Clearly, what you are trying to do is to sneak religion in the back door. Take your 'faith' and go to church with it. Wikipedia is NOT A THEOCRACY. Comments such as "those who have faith will only understand" does what most religion does: it puts some people above others and sets up false boundaries of 'morality' (often ignored by those claiming to be 'religious/spiritual'). The FACT of the matter is: your complete objection to the current setup, and reason for this proposal, is to PROMOTE a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of extreme ages in the Bible. However, we see that there can be no common ground between science (which demands proof) and religion (which demands faith...belief without proof). Thus the best way to 'solve' the problem is 'separation'...as in 'separation of church and state.' You are free to believe whatever you wish privately...just don't be pushing it on others here at Wikipedia.

2. Originally, the entire article was 'longevity myths'. I created the 'longevity claims' to address the issue that there is at least SOME small degree of 'scientific possibility' that some of these claims might be true...or close to it (i.e. 120 instead of 125). In reality, the possibility of a case being true probably ends at between 122-125. We just don't know for sure. However, consider the odds:

chance of living to 120: 1 in 10 billion chance of living to 125: 1 in a trillion

So, in reality the cutoff should probably be '123'. However, I do admit the numbers were based on data from a long time ago, so we can relax the odds a bit. SO, to give people a little 'margin of error' I graciously expanded the general cut-off point to age '130'. Note this helps the Bible: Moses 'could have been' 120 and Aaron 'could have been' 123 (based on scientific possibility, although the ages quoted were allegorical and probably not reflective of the real life of a person here on Earth...a generation was '40' years and since Moses's life was in 'three parts', then 40 X 3=120. So Mose's quoted age had numerologist significance and shouldn't be viewed literally, unless of course you also believe that rods bud or staffs turn into snakes).

3. Why isn't Ruby Muhammad listed? That one is easy. Because, if we drop the standards to allow no proof (other than a newspaper claim), then the number of cases increases considerably. As such, claims to age 110-113 really aren't significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article (look at how many we have 114+ right now).

Further, most unvalidated claims are most important in the context of claming to be older than the world's oldest 'validated' person. Since Edna Parker is born Apr 20 1893, it seems that anyone older than that is a nice bet for inclusion.

However, in the time of someone like Jeanne Calment, she began to outlive some of the claimants (such as Emma Winn, '118' in March 1994). Thus, it makes sense to make the cutoff point not 'superior but unauthenticated' claims (as Guinness once did, and which simply meant 'claims older than the official oldest person') but age 114 itself. Or maybe 113, but we really don't need to bother with younger than that.

4. Where should the cutoff between longevity claims/longevity myths be? Yes, perhaps Moloko Temo should already be promoted to 'mythical' status...her age is in the fanciful range, and the evidence suggests she's about 103, not 133 (based on the ages of her children). However, I define the 'oldest living claimant' as the 'oldest living person with a cited date of birth whose age has been recently quoted in the news (i.e. the past two years) and for whom a claim of 'world's oldest person' has been made'. Moloko Temo barely fits that definition. When someone e-mails me that they know of a 160-year-old witchdoctor woman in Kenya, that does not.

Also, I see no problem with a bit of an overlap. Check out the article on Venn diagrams. You can have 'some' overlap and still have two different sets of data. Exceptions only prove that there is a general rule; otherwise you wouldn't have to cite it. Note that a 'centenarian' is also a human. A 'longevity claimant' can also be a 'longevity myth.' But there are cases out there that clearly fit into only one category. Methuselah is clearly a myth. Maria Strelnikova is a claim.Ryoung122 10:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Let's not forget that the Bible 'confirms' Methuselah's age. I don't know why people think the word 'myth' is such a pejorative. Last I checked, it was O.K. to call Zeus a 'Greek myth'...was it not? But suddenly a character from the Hebrew Bible is a 'myth' and religous zealots come running. Whatever happened to equal treatment?Ryoung122 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to #1:

• The article should be neutral. The article should not be bias toward religion. Believe it or not, there are Christians as well as people of other religions who read Wikipedia.

In response to #2:

• So basically what you did is split the article into 2 parts, called one "possible" (Longevity claims) and called the other "false?" (Longevity myths) Also note that Joshua lived to 110.

In response to #3:

• Makes sense.

In response to #4:

• A myth is something that is false, like I mentioned before.

-AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a myth is not simply something that is false. If a murderer kills someone and says "I didn't do it" that's a lie, not a myth. The simplest definition of a 'myth' is "something widely believed to be true, usually on the basis of religion or folklore, for which scientific evidence strongly suggests is false."

Please note that the Bible itself tells us to 'hot give heed to unending MYTHS and genealogies."

Why? Because we forget the original purpose of the myth: to explain to humans what they can understand at the time. When a parent explains to a child that 'babies come from a stork', the parent knows the story is not true, but tells it because the child is too young to be hearing about 'penis and vagina.' The early Bible ages given are both numerological and allegorical. They are meant to fill in generation gaps in order to stretch the beginning of creation back to 4000 BC or so. In many cases, it is believed that the ages given actually refer to not a single person but a 'family' or 'house' (i.e. "House of Tudor"). The people at the time were nomadic and DID NOT KEEP RECORDS OF BIRTH AND DEATH. Stories were told/recollected ORALLY. Notably, when the Hebrews/Israelites settled down and began accurate recordkeeping in the time of King David, the ages claimed for the kings...generally 40 to 70 years old...accord well with the ages of Roman emperors or the Kings of England in the Middle Ages. Hence, I am not saying that the entire Bible is a 'myth'...we are saying that the early patriarchal stories are myths...and even the Bible says so.

1 Timothy 6:20, "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith....;"

In any case, however, this entire article is NOT about the Bible; it is about the modern-age documentation of the maximum human life span, as observed through individual and national recordkeeping. Your arguments are akin to demanding the inclusion of the 'president' from the TV show 'West Wing' on a list of U.S. presidents. It comes from an entirely different 'universe'. One is fact-based; the other is imaginary/fictional.Ryoung122 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary refers a myth as something fictional or imaginary. The article is bias toward religion. How do you know they are to fill generation gaps? The entire Bible is true, there isn't one part that is false. Not even the ages of the people of the times before the Exodus. It's all true. Christians say it's true, other people disagree. So what do we do? Make it neutral. If you think I am trying to add people to the List of the oldest people, such as Methuselah, I am not. That list is for validated cases, and since there are people who don't believe the Bible is a historical document while others believe it is true, then they shouldn't be listed until the dispute is resolved. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is you want the articles to be biased in favor of fundamentalist Christianity, instead of taking a neutral view. Not all Christians believe the Bible should be interpreted literally for every passage. Otherwise, we would have a big problem today:

The books of Leviticus and Exodus - They are great examples of our moral code? Jul 19th, 2007 by chezzag

I have been sent an email which is humorous but on the flip side it also demonstrates something a bit more serious. It demonstrates how verses from the Bible can be used against people and justifies virtually any stance they may wish to take.

Just so you know I have looked up all of these verses in the Holy Bible and yes they are true. So in reality the following are fair enough questions when you think about it. I can see why Sam Harris loves to quote Leviticus.

On a serious note, these types of quotes really put me off certain religions, because I wouldn’t want to be associated with or try to defend words such as these. Remember they are in the holy book that many people strongly defend and the only reason we are not carrying out these barbaric acts today in most Western countries, is not because religion has evolved, it is because our morals and sense of humanity have evolved and religion has had to keep up with our changing morals.

It also highlights the point which I made in my post “Religion, God and Peace: My Humble Opinion” when I made the following statement,

“Another point is that if there are parts of the holy book which are way out of date or put your religion in a bad light in these more modern times, then why keep those passages? As a religion you are only giving ammunition to non-believers to discount your religion due to some of the ridiculous antics of a more ancient civilisation, which you obviously must accept as gospel and therefore should be adhered to or otherwise you wouldn’t have them in your holy book. Of course your answer will be that they were the written works of your god and they can’t be altered, fair enough but I can tell you now it is your religion and also some of mankind that is suffering because of it. Terrible actions can be justified just by quoting a verse from a holy book.”

The email:

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, and dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. On her radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual un-cleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is: my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer Simpson-Caldwell

Ryoung122 14:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." In other words, it is impossible not to sin. Everyone sins. Some people try to obey God's laws, (Like those verses mentioned above) but are unable to, either because they don't want to, human laws, etc. However, it IS possible to sin and still get to heaven as said in the Bible. The whole point is that the article should not be biased toward religion. There are people who believe the ENTIRE Bible. I'm not saying let's make it a religious POV. Making the article a religious POV would put Methuselah and other religious figures on the list of the oldest people, which will not happen as stated earlier. (If you think I am trying to add people to the list of the oldest people, such as Methuselah, I am not. That list is for validated cases, and since there are people who don't believe the Bible is a historical document while others believe it is true, then they shouldn't be listed until the dispute is resolved.) The longevity myths article is basically saying that Methuselah and other Biblical people's ages are false. That is NOT, I repeat, NOT a neutral viewpoint. The article must be a nuetral viewpoint. It should tell BOTH sides. Right now it's treating those age claims like they are not true. It should be equal. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a brief note- Just thought I'd say that not all of us Christians are as foolish as AMK here. As with much of the old testament (and indeed, the new testament) the super long ages of the patriarchs are exaggerated to prove a point. They belong in the myths section and nowhere else. From a scientific viewpoint, they're wrong, simple as that. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.253.157 (talk • contribs)

He is not foolish and I'm a Christian too, but I agree with your statement about "figurative ages" stated in the Bible. Extremely sexy 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two kinds of people in this: those who believe these ages are true and those who disagree. In other words, there's two point of views. On Wikipedia, viewpoints must be balanced. In other words, we can't call them "true ages" for the sake of those who doubt the ages and we can't call them "false ages" for the sake of those who believe these ages are true. So what's in between? What will we call them to follow WP:NPOV? Right now it's violating WP:NPOV. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)