"Dwight Hooper" <dh at bentonrea.com> wrote in message
news:45159f7d.0207152219.4d5fa4b3 at posting.google.com...
> Dwight: As to the theory no comment. As to Mr. Collins comment, I say,
> "life-expectancy at birth perhaps. But when I look at my family tree
> and
> the length of recorded life spans of those who managed to procreate, I
> see spans
> that often reached 60, 70 and even 80. And one maternal line that
> repeatedly reached the century mark even in the 1800's. Even 100 years
> ago, I suspect one in 20 live births didn't get past the three month
> mark. Perhaps my ancestors were not your ancestors;-)"
>>>> "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message n
> >
> > it wasn't that long ago that our anscestors life-expectancy was half
what it
> > is now.
> >
> > no?
> >
And if the Holy Bible's timeframes are accurate, and if we understand them
correctly, then life expectancies then were much longer than they are today.
Also, countries like Japan and Australia, who spend half as much as a
percent of GDP for "health care", have 4 year longer life expectancies than
we do.
There's a lot of hot air surrounding this claim about our life expectancies
increasing, and it seems to be designed to conceal the fact that they're
not, or maybe even that they're getting shorter.
John Knight
