More proof evolution fails

[Woodruff]

God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)

I'm curious to see some actual studies on this - do you have some references for me, or was this just something you heard?

Now you're arguing with scientific tests? Guh, wha's wrong with you?

Yeah, I noticed he didn't provide any too. Glad you picked up on that.

[2dimes]

God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)

I'm curious to see some actual studies on this - do you have some references for me, or was this just something you heard?

Now you're arguing with scientific tests? Guh, wha's wrong with you?

Yeah, Glad you picked up on that.

BAN!

[Woodruff]

God rested to give us an example to follow.(in scientific tests you work more effencently if you rest roughly one seventh of the time)

I'm curious to see some actual studies on this - do you have some references for me, or was this just something you heard?

Now you're arguing with scientific tests? Guh, wha's wrong with you?

Yeah, Glad you picked up on that.

BAN!

We've already had this particular discussion, 2dimes...you may recall it.

[2dimes]

Something about you taking [ ] until after class?

[Woodruff]

Something about you taking [ ] until after class?

I have no idea what that means, but I don't believe so...no. But it was something that I take personally and seriously.

[2dimes]

ATTENTION everyone he actually said.

I'm curious to see some actual studies on this - do you have some references for me, or was this just something you heard?

Please don't get confused by the miss quote. Carry on with the interrogation of wercool. I'm sure that when I stop undermining things you'll get to the bottom of it.

I'm going to guess it was something he heard. Best of luck winning this serious matter.

Now give me my [ ] back, class is over.

[2dimes]

Dude wrote "scientific tests" I still can't believe anyone would have the audacity to question this? If we can't trust scientific tests there's nothing left to trust. Time to man the bunkers.

[wercool]

im looking im looking. i cant remeber where i herd it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bbat1.html
its not scientific but it explains well.

[bradleybadly]

I obviously can't speak for all Christians, but some think that God created the sun earlier, but there was a haze in the atmosphere that prevented it from showing through very well, thus allowing a little light, but not showing the sun. I think this view is mostly held by long-day creationists (Another literal interpretation of the Bible, since the Hebrew word used for day is also their only word for an age.). Notice that first God created light, then he separated the light from the darkness. This correlates exactly with the current big bang theory. First there was nothing, God spoke, then there was a mass of light. Very shortly afterwards, the light separated by gravity into star and galaxies. The stars and galaxies are the light and the space between them are the darkness. It would make sense that a newly formed earth would not have a completely clear atmosphere, and the sun, moon and stars would not clearly shine through. I think this is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible too. I rushed through this a bit, so sorry if this is a little disorganized!

I think Player might be a "long-day creationist" and I've never heard her say anything like that. If the sun was created earlier then why doesn't it say something like "the sun was created earlier"?

[Woodruff]

im looking im looking. i cant remeber where i herd it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bbat1.html
its not scientific but it explains well.

No, that really doesn't "explain well" the idea that we're more efficient in scientific tests if we rest roughly 1/7th of the time.

[Maugena]

im looking im looking. i cant remeber where i herd it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bbat1.html
its not scientific but it explains well.

No, that really doesn't "explain well" the idea that we're more efficient in scientific tests if we rest roughly 1/7th of the time.

If we worked our asses off and didn't rest for 6/7 of our entire lives and we rested for the last 1/7 of it, this claim would still hold true?

[jonesthecurl]

im looking im looking. i cant remeber where i herd it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bbat1.html
its not scientific but it explains well.

This relates to "scientific tests" how? It's just an extended rap on the notion that you shouldn't be too busy all the time.

[wercool]

okay i cant remeber where i saw it but there were two armies. one marched hard 7 days a week. the seconed rested every 7th day and eventually they passed the first army because they were so exuasted.

[2dimes]

Of course there's no scientific tests regarding working 7 days a week because you can't do it long term. Why and how would scientists track the few people that work themselves to death and compare them to most of the rest of the population.

Do you need a scientific test proving something you know can't be done in a healthy manner. Are you really claiming you work all the time and don't take at least one day off every week?

I have met quite a few people that try to do it because of the money. I won't claim science but these guys do not end up aging well. They also are not the kind of people you would want to spend a lot of time around.

[Timminz]

I believe it was DaVinci who had devised the most efficient ratio of work:rest. Something like, he would sleep for 15 minutes every 3 or 4 hours. Apparently, after acclimatizing the body, one could go continually on this schedule. This meant he would only need 1.5 - 2 hours of sleep per day, leaving him with much more time to work on his many inventions, theories, artwork, or what-have-you.

[tzor]

Of course there's no scientific tests regarding working 7 days a week because you can't do it long term.

Sure you can. Where do you get that sort of nonsense? This whole "work" thing is nonsense to begin with, no one really works a day, when you think about it. The standard person works 1/3 of a day (8 hours of a 24 hour day). Given that, what is the practical difference between working 2 full days in a seven day week and 2.33 full days in a seven day week.

So you take that one person and give him a day off. What does he do? He WORKS! It might be at home, it might be engaged in a sporting activity, and it might not "bring home the bacon" but from a biblical definition of "work" it's work.

(As opposed to the physics definition: In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity, with SI units of joules. The term work was first coined in 1826 by the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis.)

So what do we do, we give them two days off. How "Biblical" is that? Did you know the French wanted to make a ten day week as a part of their new system of measurement (along with a te hour day). FAIL.

[2dimes]

I have heard people state the 10 hour day was proven to be the most productive. Ok tzor, you're right show us the "scientific studies".

I know 10 days worked at 10 hours each isn't good for people that's the shift in the tarsands extraction plant construction. Most people burn out and have to take time off pretty quickly.

[tzor]

I have heard people state the 10 hour day was proven to be the most productive. Ok tzor, you're right show us the "scientific studies".

Actually I was talking about turning a day into ten hours of decimal time. This is different from the ten hour workday using a 24 hour day.



The ten hour working day (or the ten hour movement) began in the 1940's.

In the Lowell mills during the 1840's, mill workers worked a typical work day of
14 hours long. Standing for fourteen hours a day, six days a week, breathing cotton dust, the girls complained about low wages, varicose veins, long hours, lack of opportunity for education, and generally being treated like slaves.

The Ten Hour Movement began in 1844 as mill girls were asked to sign a petition to pressure the mills to change to a ten hour work day. Many feared that if they signed a petition calling for a ten-hour day, they would be fired and blacklisted from working at any mill. By 1845, a 130 foot long scroll with 4,500 names on it was sent to the government. The Ten-Hour Movement petition was not passed at that time. In 1874, the law was passed, but girls were not working in the mills any more. Immigrants had taken their places.

The question of the 4 - 10 hour work schedule over the tradiional 5 - 8 hour work schedule is complex and one of the reasons why I don't see any studies on the web about this is because it is never fully implemented. The current methods attempt to map it into the traditional five day work week, which means not everyone gets three days off consecutively. I do know a place that has a 4 - 9 hour + 1 4 hour work schedule and everyone gets Friday afternoon off.

[Woodruff]

okay i cant remeber where i saw it but there were two armies. one marched hard 7 days a week. the seconed rested every 7th day and eventually they passed the first army because they were so exuasted.

Oh my freaking good Lord. That's as much a testament to the exhaustion side of things being a detriment as it is to that one-day-off making any difference.

[jonesthecurl]

okay i cant remeber where i saw it but there were two armies. one marched hard 7 days a week. the seconed rested every 7th day and eventually they passed the first army because they were so exuasted.

Oh my freaking good Lord. That's as much a testament to the exhaustion side of things being a detriment as it is to that one-day-off making any difference.

No, it's science, and that proves the Bible's all true. He can't help it if you can't get that.

[Lionz]

Who knows what's happened for sure Bradley, but what if He created light before the sun and then chose to create light emitting spheroids later on?

[Victor Sullivan]

Abiogenesis is the first step in the evolutionary theory and that has to be proven first in order to validate anything evolution, but it's a pretty far-fetched hypothesis, since a prokaryote would have to ingest another prokaryote without digesting the prokaryote so it can somehow function as an organelle (and this would have had to have been done several times to account for the multiple organelles of a eukaryote plus each ingested prokaryote would have had to have mutated differently to form the different organelles, plus somehow work together and still keep the prokaryote they've been ingested by alive, etc.) Abiogenesis, if you don't know or haven't already figured it out, is the evolution of the prokaryote (simple cell) into a eukaryote (cell with many different functioning parts called organelles). Anyways, I know this is slightly off-topic of what's currently being discussed, but I feel it still is relevant to the topic.

Sully

[PLAYER57832]

I obviously can't speak for all Christians, but some think that God created the sun earlier, but there was a haze in the atmosphere that prevented it from showing through very well, thus allowing a little light, but not showing the sun. I think this view is mostly held by long-day creationists (Another literal interpretation of the Bible, since the Hebrew word used for day is also their only word for an age.). Notice that first God created light, then he separated the light from the darkness. This correlates exactly with the current big bang theory. First there was nothing, God spoke, then there was a mass of light. Very shortly afterwards, the light separated by gravity into star and galaxies. The stars and galaxies are the light and the space between them are the darkness. It would make sense that a newly formed earth would not have a completely clear atmosphere, and the sun, moon and stars would not clearly shine through. I think this is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible too. I rushed through this a bit, so sorry if this is a little disorganized!

I think Player might be a "long-day creationist" and I've never heard her say anything like that. If the sun was created earlier then why doesn't it say something like "the sun was created earlier"?

Just to clarify my position:
Yes, I believe that the word used for "day" in the Old Testament ("yom") is not a specific word any more than "day" is in English. In this context, it refers to a segment of time.

One way I look at it is to imagine God, in all his knowledge, trying to explain to a completely unscientific people, a people who did not even consider time exactly as we do, about the creation. It is sort of like trying to explain Heavan or even death to a young child. The explanation comes in levels depending on the age and understanding. So, too, with this. Some ancient Jews, Christians basically assumed that the Earth was created in 6 revolutions of the Earth. Not knowing any different, it was a reasonable assumption, just like many children, first hearing of heavan think of something like a giant play room or music hall (depending on the explanation). Were they lied to? Well.. in the case of heavan, some parents do use words that, technically, might not be exactly true (for example, referring to death as "sleep", etc) but mostly, parents just use general discritpions (heavan is a nice place, everyone is happy there, etc.). It is not the parents that have told inaccurate information, it is that the kids fill in details incorrectly. (with the proviso that we don't 100% know ourselves in that case)
In the case of creation, many assumed that the Earth was made with a "snap" of a finger, that all the creatures we see just suddenly appeared. Many scholars, not being scientists themselves, assumed the same. More often, the really technical scholars saw it as an open question, something not exactly specified. That is, the words used were intentionally "open" and not referring to a set time period. Or, as some people/scholars have said, "how long is God's day?"

At any rate, the point of Genesis is that God made all. I find it remarkable that the order given is the same as put forward by Evolutionists. As for the sun -- there are actually a few different references. One is to light, the other is to the heavenly orb. Mention of the two is distinct. Light came first, but not necessarily the sun as we know it. I cannot get much into the technical aspects of astronomy and physics, but the above explanation sounds reasonable. For my part, I stick with what I know to be true.. that all life came here through the process of change, otherwise known as evolution.

[PLAYER57832]

Woodruff--

im looking im looking. i cant remeber where i herd it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bbat1.html
its not scientific but it explains well.

No, that really doesn't "explain well" the idea that we're more efficient in scientific tests if we rest roughly 1/7th of the time.

I vaguely remember hearing something similar, but have not found anything via google or ask.com yet.

However, while I cannot find specific reference to 7 days, there is a lot of research regarding the need for rest and recreation

Of course there's no scientific tests regarding working 7 days a week because you can't do it long term.

Sure you can. Where do you get that sort of nonsense? This whole "work" thing is nonsense to begin with, no one really works a day, when you think about it. The standard person works 1/3 of a day (8 hours of a 24 hour day). Given that, what is the practical difference between working 2 full days in a seven day week and 2.33 full days in a seven day week.

So you take that one person and give him a day off. What does he do? He WORKS! It might be at home, it might be engaged in a sporting activity, and it might not "bring home the bacon" but from a biblical definition of "work" it's work

Tzor, you are thinking in modern times. In ancient times, work had a very different meaning indeed. LIfe was very, very hard and essentially constant. The idea of "vacations" was unknown. Even the idea of taking any time off, for many people, was a luxury. Ironically, life was likely not as hard physically as it is for many factory workers and other mostly blue collar workers (some "white collars") today, who often truly do NOT have a day off. At any rate, the Jewish idea of a full day of rest was phenomenal. And, an important institution. It "legalized" the necessity of at least some rest.

In fact, if you look at people today who don't have that luxury, who have to go in to work 7 days (even part-time), then go home to take care of their house and families.. then you begin to see that this really is important. Just one day, for example, home with kids relaxing makes a big difference.

This is one area where I feel that the ultra-orthodox Jews have got it wrong. Like many things, they honor the "letter" of the law, but not the spirit. The "spirit" is not that we are to worry about whether picking up a phone is "work". We are to use that time to connect with our families, God and just relax.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff--

im looking im looking. i cant remeber where i herd it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bbat1.html
its not scientific but it explains well.

No, that really doesn't "explain well" the idea that we're more efficient in scientific tests if we rest roughly 1/7th of the time.

I vaguely remember hearing something similar, but have not found anything via google or ask.com yet.

However, while I cannot find specific reference to 7 days, there is a lot of research regarding the need for rest and recreation

Well of COURSE there's a lot of research regarding those things AND I don't disagree in any way that rest and recreation are very important to our efficiency. It's thoroughly irrelevant to the point, however...to the point that I really don't even understand why you bothered saying it.