[dylanjermiah]

It has less detrimental effects as opposed to an inferior alternative, yes.

The question I was asking, and which your response does not address, is whether or not a certain activity that claims to be beneficial becomes beneficial purely on the basis that it is practiced over 'x' period of time. Which I do not believe to be true. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

[pennaMan]

Surviving the test of time is the ultimate empirical evidence. In fact I'd go so far to say it's the ONLY way we can test the truth of anything at all. This goes for anything, from biological systems (evolution), technical design - the wheel, to research papers. Look in your fridge: most of the food there has been consumed for thousands of years using basically the same cooking method and is for the most part considered healthy. The recent synthetic foods like margarine and recent cooking methods like deep frying are detrimental to health.

Keep in mind, practiced over 'x' amount of time where x > 2000 years.

[dylanjermiah]

You have misinterpreted the point of my post. The initial post was:

>"if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use."

Whereby time was the factor by which something is considered 'of use'. The things you've mentioned evolution, the wheel, research papers etc. Have more concrete evidence than just time to back them up.

Although on the topic of food, do you have any evidence to support that?

[tcfunk]

But I think you've misinterpreted the original comment in the first place. Saying something "is likely to be of use" is not the same as "is empirically true".

[dylanjermiah]

Very true, my mistake. I was pushing my interpretation 'of use'. That can have many more meanings.

[4ydx]

People have been believing lots of things in religious texts for many, many years. Often enough they are flat out incorrect. Just because something is "believed" doesn't make it necessarily true.