life expectancy of an enginer

This is getting tedious now. David 1's definition of Immortal - "That which lives and can not die". [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-ageing-worms-immortality-idUSTRE81Q20Y20120227]Contemporary use of the word Immortal by reporters and scientists[/url] Dictionary definition of pedantic: "giving too much attention to formal rules or small details". Nobody else is interested in this nonsense. The OP wants to know about the life expectancy of Engineers. [i]Arguing[/i] about the dictionary definition of the word immortal is not what this site is about. It's very very dull, apart from anything else.

.... The engineers live... and they die... the rest is none of our business... staff: Weyland Corp. Deep Space Status Systems Division, Mars

@zzplural. Thanx for that link. I don't think this discussion is boring btw. Infact, it's quite interesting. and it's a discussion or debate so people are going to disagree as well has agree. After all that is what this site is for. I think. The "flatworm" regenarating flesh, muscles and other tissues which leads to it living alot longer is very interesting! Maybe that is what the Engineers do? That may explain why the "Suit" looks like it's a part of their bodies? Maybe it is a part of their bodies?

ZZplural: that is not "David 1's definition of Immortal - "That which lives and can not die"." that is the actual meaning used since there is recorded History. And guess what, IT STILL IS. just because "reporters and scientists" invent their own "neologisms" [which, btw, is becoming not only a plague but a nonsense in evey way; and never mind the laguage gap that it creates] it doesn't replace the Universaly aknowledged meanings of those definitions IN USE. easy, yes?

Zzplural: maybe they thought you meant " pedestrian". David1, allinamberclad: so something with the potential to live forever is not technically immortal? My dictionary says of immortal biology: "capable of indefinite growth or division". That's it. necronom4: you're a good egg. I think the suit is united with their body somehow. Here's a question: do they put it on, or does ...slide....on to them?

@Major Noob. You must be Yolking. Sorry, bad Joke... Noob, i'm not suggesting it's a "Suit", that's why i put the quotations on it. I personally think it's a part of their bodies, like i said, with the worm analogy thingy. Their old Skin may be replaced with the Reptile like Skin, that Bob displays? On the catwalk...on the catwalk yeah...Bob shakes his little tush on the Catwalk.

Just keep it civil you guys. I don't want to have to use my ninja robot monkeys on you all ;-) they have another secret mission to complete first :-D *coughtakingoutLindelofcough*

Poor DL set upon by ninja monkeys. He was probably so happy, at one time..

Well, Bob survived 2,000 years without dieing but when he got trilobited he died. This brings me into conclucion that in "good" conditions they live until some crazy Feebs comes and cuts their jugular vein open = death. So technology might give them an upperhand in this. But one thing their technology doesn't seem to stop is aging and when we do age our body tends to get slower and slower untill everything stops = death. We have seen that that the sacrificial engineer looked young adult and the elder looked like an old grandpa. The lifecycle is similiar, they are born as an infant, grow as toddlers and teen and one day they wake up old. But one huge thing we have to take in notice is how many our years/days/months are their year. It might be slower or faster Since they made us one fist fact is that they live older that 80 years (average human life) so they live nice and young 100 years untill they start aging. (more soon)

Ripley and joneesy didn't age much in 57 years. Maybe 2 years at most ? Let's say the ratio is 1:25 for us then it could be 1:150 for the engineers ? Any thoughts ?

how could something have no begining but an end? this sound abid strange since even the universe has a begining, and there was nothing before the universe!!!!!?

This site will twist your brain into a pretzel.

Major Noob: Anything wich has the "potential to live forever" is " potentially immortal". But if a "phisical trauma" removes that potencial, or if that thing gets killed [as zzplural sugested with the sea creature example], then, that thing cannot be immortal, for Immortality is a condition that does not allow for death in any kind of way. That is why it is called [i]Immortalitly[/i] and not "increased life span" or "aparent immortalitty". Again, the "neologisms" just make a whole lot of mess to a rather simple and logical concept. Pulserifle: I understand the difficulty in the [i]Eviternity[/i] matter and still today it gives a whole lot of headaches to scholars, researches and curious people alike. Eviternity was first proposed by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola regarding the condition of Angels. In fact, Eviternity was adopted to Theology regarding the study of the Nature of Celestial beings. The permiss is simple though: - God is [i]Eternal[/i], meaning he has no beginning nor End. - Man is [i]Mortal[/i] because he is born and he dies. - the Soul is [i]Immortal[/i] because it has a beginning but it will never die. - Angels and Celestial beings are [i]Eviternal[/i] because they never had a beginning (they are part of God) but they have an ending (which is whenever God choses it to be) All that follows are centuries of debate upon this matter.

[b]Eviternity = eternal existence[/b] according to the OED. Not necessarily qualified by any beginning or ending. Neologisms are created all the time. That's why dictionaries get updated to reflect changes in culture and technology.

ZZplural: Good work, you jumped a level from Wickypedia to OED. Now ask your self why would there be a different entry on "OED" for both Eviternity and Eternity with different meanings. And Why Eviternity is so poorly described? and why is there no mentioning of Giovanni Pico de la Mirandola [the one who put forward that definition]? Neologisms are created all the time yes, metaphysycal definitions with centuries [and in some cases milenia] of being apllied are not. The last one that was created was "Dasein" and only for German use, by Martin Heidegger, and only used by him and Karl Jaspers. But because it creates confusion towards what was already in use, it wasn't adopted in other languages. Dasein, by the way, means only "that which is existing", the English equivilent of "Being", the ancient Greek meaning of "Ontós", the portuguese meaning for "Ser" and so on. So, it's was a relative local use of an expression that already existed, which brought nothing new to the definition it self. Obviously there are new words that must be created and you said it pretty well for technologie use and cultural [i.e. local] use. Internet is a new word with it's own definition. That is great and necessary. Immortality, mortallity, Eternity, Eviternity and so on are definitions that are unchangeable because they already have the universal consensus for their meaning. Those who missuse those definitions and try to give them a new meaning or aply them to other things other than that which defines those words are falling into error and misleading others.

[i]"Immortality, mortallity, Eternity, Eviternity and so on are definitions that are unchangeable because they already have the universal consensus for their meaning."[/i] Your argument is fallacious because there is clearly no universal consensus that the word immortal should only be used in the limited sense that you have defined. I provided one citation; there are many many more. [i]"Those who missuse those definitions and try to give them a new meaning or aply them to other things other than that which defines those words are falling into error and misleading others."[/i] Yeah, right. [url=http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/158727/2011-word-of-the-year-shows-how-old-words-take-on-new-meanings/]Language never moves on, does it?[/url] While you're still here, would you mind explaining to Major Noob why his dictionary should be burned. Should he get in touch with the publishers, do you think?

I cannot fathom living 100,000 or more years without sex with an opposite sex. Will we see women engineers? Is this race created like clones, are they hermaphrodites like worms? Not to get weird or freaky on everyone but how do we know? The engineers appear to be Men in structure and appearance on film. Are they consummated like humans and is there a life cycle? Is there a birth process? What if they have the ability like the Cylons to back up or transfer their memories to another host or body (resurrection)? The possibilities are endless and that is what makes them so mysterious. Are their organs placed the same as ours and do the serve the same functions as ours? Can they regenerate them selves and repair body damage that would normaly be mortal to humans?

ZZplural: [i]Your argument is fallacious because there is clearly no universal consensus that the word immortal should only be used in the limited sense that you have defined.[/i] There is Universal consensus towards the definition of those words because if you [i]take some time to do some research and[/i] [i]actually read[/i] any works from any people from any country in the world [other than those of your own country] that include those concepts in said works you will find that the definitions are exactly the same. And, by the way, it is by no means a [i]limited sense[/i]. If it was a [i]limited sense[/i] there would not be entire libraries in the whole world with books concerning such matters, discussing them, dissecting them, analysing them and making a whole Corpus of such definitions. I.e. you wouldn't have 5000 +/- years of History that also comprises such definitions still being used and aplied wether in coloquial terms or in Academia. So, there is no fallacy at all; either than your way of limiting definitions you seem not to understand and/or accept according to what you think you know/understand. As for the Link: Here is a great example that you yoursef provided of your own [b]limitation[/b] and fallacy: "[b]The American Dialect Society has chosen[/b] “occupy” as the 2011 Word of the Year. “It has taken on new parts of speech (as an imperative verb: ‘Occupy!’ or as an attributive noun: ‘the Occupy movement’) and new meanings, related to the protest movement and its style of demonstrations,” Ben Zimmer, chair of the organization’s New Words Committee, told me. “It was also remarkable how the word itself contributed to the movement’s success.” so where is your limitation: 1 - Occupy definition wasn't invented by that movement. It is a publicly cry out and a name given for that movement. If I had a dog I'd call it Rex; would I be creating that word or that word's meaning? No, because Rex means "king" in Latin, I would be calling my dog "King" as a name for a dog. So, giving a name that is also an order to a movement is not creating anything new at all. What would Politicians and Generals call to the act of imobilizing the enemie's actions by standing on their turf? An ocupation. What would a General cry out to his minnions? Ocupy. Is that a new word with a new meaning? No it is not. 2 - Ocupy, is not the "word of the year" in many coutries. Just because it was made a "word of the year" in the United States it has become the word of the year in other countries? Simple answer: no it has not. And if you think it has you are in error and fell into fallacy. 3 - That link it self is a politic out cry. It is emphasising the Ocupy Movement [wich is the citizens legal right to manifest against some sort of policy] for politic matters. If you are unable to see that, you are also in error and fell into fallacy. As for M. Noob member, what that member does with dictionaries is none of my business neither yours. As for the question "Should he get in touch with the publishers" you should ask M. Noob yourself, since It's none of my business at all.

Its a tricky question... You see Vampires are Immortal as far as fictional ones, but are they? Take off their Heads, Burn them, Stake through Heart and Sunlight (or UV) will kill them..... but then in theory would a Vampire who does not feed on Blood but stays in a dark room live forever? The Engineers appear to be a race that have better technology and thus could cure (or are immune) maybe diseases etc that affect other life forms, but they are as mortal as mankind in every aspect aside from their natural life expectancy is much longer... But how long is never known.... 200 years, 2000 years, 20'000.... We see the Elders appear aged are they older Engineers or are the Engineers a clone race created in their image and if so, do they both have the same life expectancy? We just dont know, and maybe Ridley will never tell us... Gods and Angels are Immortal in essence, these Engineers are not and thus are not really Gods.... and i think the movie may explore that Gods in the traditional sense do not exist.

Look at it this way... humankind's technology will accelerate in complexity (probably exponentially) over the next few hundred years, let alone 1000 centuries. In that timeframe, we're simply not going to put up with the inconveniences of disease and death that encumber us today. We're going to re-engineer ourselves. We'll be the Engineers. What will [i]we[/i] be like when that happens? Probably not like the people we are today. And what will happen when we engineer AIs that dominate us intellectually; will we become [i]them[/i]? What will be the motivations that drive such intelligences? Very hard to say. Who can say how the Prometheus Engineers' internal organs or sex cycle works. We don't know. But they can surely regenerate and recover from an injury that would kill you. For this to not be the case would mean that they're not very good at engineering. Unless, of course, they have religious or societal edicts that forbid their own modification. They look like fairly perfect creatures to my eye, though, so my bet would be that they possess amazing physical qualities.

Big Dave: "If it bleeds we can kill it" came into mind

@zzplural i know what your saying... But it seems that the Xeno and Xeno DNA creations have a habit of putting a end to their Immortal Lives.

So what have we learnt yet again - nothing or close to - its all out there in the the either and we will only find out (hopefully) in the next 1 - 2 parts. I for one think they could be a few years (cloned to perform a job then die) to as long as they don't get harmed essentially till the end of the universe. Omg why am I typingggggg...bye! :P

Hmm had a glitch there sorry 2 posts...

@BigDave Yes, exactly. An immortal organism as commonly described by researchers into biological immortality is indeed capable of death by physical trauma. But not by virtue of its intrinsic design. Your mortal life could end quite easily tomorrow if you got ran over by a bus. But probably not, if you stay at home. @David 1 It's getting to the point where it's becoming impossible to argue with you because of your predilection for inventing concepts like universality that only work if you ignore the exceptions to said universality, your dogmatic assertion that a particular word [i]has[/i] to have the same accepted definition in every country on the face of the Earth, and an unwillingness to accept that language is subject to continuous evolution. The latter, in particular, is completely absurd because any good dictionary of etymology shows how the meaning of words change over time.

ZZplural: It's becoming impossible for you to argue not for my "predilection for inventing concepts like universality that only work if you ignore the exceptions to said universality" but because you show yourself not knowing what a simple concept like "immortality" is and prefer to state such nonsensical and antagonic things like "[b]An immortal organism[/b] as commonly described by researchers into biological immortality [b]is indeed capable of death[/b] by physical trauma. But not by virtue of its intrinsic design. Your mortal life could end quite easily tomorrow if you got ran over by a bus. But probably not, if you stay at home" i.e.: if it dies, it is not Immortal at all. Than you state my "dogmatic assertion that a particular word has to have the same accepted definition in every country on the face of the Earth" but yet you seem to not even know what universality is. A universal concept is a concept that is described equally everywhere. A very simple example: the definition of a "chair" is the same everywhere. So what makes it so hard for you to accept that concepts such as "mortallity" and "Immortallity" are also the same no matter where you go? Is that what you call being "dogmatic"? Really? To say that I have "an unwillingness to accept that language is subject to continuous evolution" is another absurdity since I never said that language doesn't evolve. IT MUST evolve, and I even gave you the example of "internet" for a word with it's own definition that didn't exist. but the cherry on top is your statement: "The latter, in particular, is completely absurd because any good dictionary of etymology shows how the meaning of words change over time." And by this you are reffering to the United States political inclined social "manifestation" that was dubbed "Occupy", as if "occupy" is now and for the future a new definition for the peoples right to manifest themselves publicly against some policy. That is, in it self totaly absurd, for the definition of that public manifestation of peoples unhappyness towards some policy [independet of being from the US or anywhere else] still is "public manifestation". To conclude, you started with Wikipedia which is the most subjective and error galored on-line "encyclopedia" to "OED" wich is a Dictionary from one country only [and there are better dictionaries than that by the way] to state that "any good dictionary of etymologie shows how the meaning of words change over time" indeed some words do, others such "mortallity" and "Immortality" simply don't. The definition of mortality from 200 years ago still is the definition of mortality today. Same thing with the definition of "immortality". and so are their concepts, which were, are and will remain: mortality - that which can die immortallity - that which can not die. In the end, this little argument is enriching for the OP [and the probability of the Engineer's nature] as well to those who never heard of a concept such as "eviternity"; since 4 concepts were described: Mortality Immortality Eternity Eviternity

Children...behave! Proper definition or not, to be immortal is to be able to stay alive forever and have the ability to heal from what would normally be mortal wounds. However, this does not mean that the immortal cannot die...take highlander for example, perfect for defining immortality. Now undead on the other hand... @pulserifle187 Good question. Let's say that the engineers have an exact DNA match to humans as expressed in the movie. If you think about how incredibly varying the human race really is, it's not much of a stretch to accept that the engineers are not really any different. Compare a big Norse guy to a Vietnamese guy...you would almost think that they have vastly different DNA, but they don't. So the information for height, weight, color or even life span in engineers might be different from ours, but only different in coding and sequence. The number of genes in the sequences comparing humans to engineers may be exactly the same. Am I saying that right? Someone who knows more about the genome could explain it better. But I think my point is clear. As far as whether or not the engineers are immortal or not, who knows?... Maybe we will find out in the future movies. I personally do not believe that they are immortal.

Nrlfetmefan: Lol. Hihglander's Immortality is not so Immortal, once the head is chopped. To be truelly Immortal [as in it's proper definition: that wich lives and can not die] even if the head is chopped, "it" - whatever "it" is - remains alive. You could have given Wolverine as an example for a fantasy character: Not even his head gets chopped thx to adamantium. As far as one can tell he is the one true Immortal: Stopped aging, wounds are always healled, and he just doesn't die no matter what. Or even Constantine's "Balthazar". This one serves it better. It gets chopped to pieces and still is pretty well living [remember his blinking eye]. Big Dave said it preTty well: "You see Vampires are Immortal as far as fictional ones, but are they? Take off their Heads, Burn them, Stake through Heart and Sunlight (or UV) will kill them..... but then in theory would a Vampire who does not feed on Blood but stays in a dark room live forever?"

@david 1 gotta call ya out here man.. I had to go back through and re-read all of your posts pertaining to this thread topic and I noticed something...you have not added one single thing to the thread that helps hypothesize the question, "what is the life expectancy of an engineer?" Throw me something hear, I'm interested...i want to hear your theory. @pulserifle187 I went and wikied human genome and read all kinds of neat stuff. If you are interested, check it out. It does tell me one thing though;Humans and Engineers could definitely have a dna match and still be vastly different. A large majority of our dna is junk and unused..so our having a perfect dna match to theirs probably still leaves plenty of room for say, differences in appearance to include a full on biosuit and still leave room for more. As far as life expectancy? I have an idea. If they can genetically engineer themselves and create biosuits that "may" be genetically part of them, then they can probably if not stop aging at least be able to slow down the natural decay of their dna and thus live longer than we. I'm gonna wager that the elders live long lives, much longer than ours...plenty of time to get S$%T done.

Nrlfetmefan: lol. Than you weren't paying attention, read my very first post.