Possumdude0 wrote:Another note: Genesis 6:3 "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in  man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'"
I used to think this passage meant the maximum lifespan was set at 120 years (with some individual variation). But while reading some stuff for this post I came across an alternate interpretation that the 120 years is the amount of time until the flood. I haven't given much thought to this interpretation yet, since I only just heard of it, but it is possible that my interpretation has been wrong. If someone else ever brings it up, keep this in mind.
So, what we have from studies is the fact that humans of the time lived to be about 30-40. We have the bible claiming either that they SHOULD be living to 120, or that 120 is their MAX. Neither makes sense though when you consider what people believe concerning people like Noah and his (and other's) ages. We've got noah living to be about 950, Issac (180), Abraham about the same (175),
Possumdude0 wrote:That sounds pretty good. Except that our average life expectancy has been increasing over time (as opposed to maximum life span, which has remained about the same). Sure, better medical science can explain why we live longer now. But eating a more natural diet didn't seem to help people then. I've got nothing against processed foods, although stuff like McDonald's is probably unhealthy if eaten too often (like I do).
That's because EVERYTHING is better, not just medicine. We're fed all the time, we have houses, we have sanitary conditions, we don't have bears mauling us (usually), etc.
This is more proof that you're horrible at science (which makes sense, you being christian and all).
Possumdude0 wrote:That's because EVERYTHING is better, not just medicine. We're fed all the time, we have houses, we have sanitary conditions, we don't have bears mauling us (usually), etc.
That's fine. I'm just saying that processed foods aren't the health issue you make them out to be. A lot of food we eat today is very unhealthy, but that isn't because it's "processed". There are plenty of healthy processed foods out there.This is more proof that you're horrible at science (which makes sense, you being christian and all).
A cheap shot and an ad hominem. What does my religion have to do with it? And why do you claim that being a Christian makes me bad at science?
Possumdude0 wrote:I try to avoid arguments that are based on things my opponents do not yet believe in. The cosmological argument I gave in previous posts is based in the Big Bang theory, which is generally accepted. That's why it's my favorite argument to start off with, because I'll have common ground. Arguing that sin has caused a degradation in creation leaves me with no common ground. Without any common ground, arguments never get anywhere at all.
Ad Hominems aren't always logical fallacies. Your religion has to do with your science ability in that you're believing in a religion that has tons of evidence against it.
I'm not saying "zomg all teh processed foods are bad!!!!111" - but there is a lot of research out there suggestion that processed foods are a large part of the obesity and disease
we see rampant.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests