Sometimes Darwin and Evolution do not work

NO!!! I HAVE TO HERE THIS CRAPPY SONG SO MUCH!!!

Absolutely.  A person that is given some liberties regarding how they spend their time at work will usually perform better in the long run than somebody that is forced to “work” for the duration.  Granted, this is the case for salaried professionals more so than for menial, minimum wage hourly jobs where the worker is much more replaceable.  A professional that you need to put significant resources into to make them an important, contributing member of the organization should be allowed some freedom in this regard.  If their job is high-stress, they will just get burned out quicker if the stress isn’t relived in some manner.

@ncscswitch:

Not sure about the eyes, but I think moving the playground away from the sewers might have been a good idea   :lol:

classic engineering joke!

functionally speaking, however, why not move all of your sewage out of the same pipes?

“Know your enemy”….I can think of no better reason.

Rob.

I think its not. That thing you quoted is an US law proposal, and the only difference from the situation today is that a UN controlled lightly armed force would subsitute the US controlled heavily armed forces…. maybe that difference between “N” and “S” is the thing you dislike that much.

Well, I can give you some human impressions. I studied Mathematics in Birmingham, Alabama for 10 month. Though the German unemployment rate is bigger than the American, the people are far better off in Germany than in America. There is less poverty, there are fewer homeless and the education is far better.
There are more beggars on the street than here. There is much more crime in the cities. I spoke with lots of people in dept and living from paycheque to paycheque. The cars on the streets were old and damaged. The same is true for many houses I saw. The college is very expensive, but Math 101 is rediculous. An American Bachelor is maybe, just maybe, a little more than a Bavarian Abitur.

Since I’m still at college, I don’t work yet and thus can’t give you personal information on that.

@cystic:

… I keep to things i have mastered - genetics, biochemistry - and avoid the whole physics realm.

very unfortunately for me :)

And of course you would not use flawed creationists arguements to dispute creation - that would be too easy, and one might easily use flawed evolutionists arguments in the same vein.

Well, i can use it to discredit one of the debaters ;)…. rethorics is part of debating…
btw, did you mean (flawed creationists) argument or flawed (creationists argument)…
as i have no problem in discrediting someone who reveals himself as (flawed debater) while someone who brings just one flawed argumetn does not deserve that treatment. Just to make that clear.

As for the “light”-discussions - i just assume that even Einstein had no idea what he was talking about and that every generation will have some wild new revelation about light that disputes that of earlier generations. who cares? 8)

Hmmm…. Light has been an interesting topic, lively discussed during Newtons time (wether light was a particle or a wave), then with Maxwell it seemed it was “decided” (pro wave), but with the early Quantum Mechanics again the understanding changed/grew (wave-particle dualism). Now with Quantum Field Theory, we seem to have a pretty good grasp on what is happening.
The Ether that should be the medium for the electromagnetic wave is still another topic.

So, we see that theories change and evolve or even the old one is thrown into the dustbin, whenever something new (feature/experiment) is discovered, revealed or proven. Up to now, i don’t see the need for a creationist theory, just as you probably see it.

I read about this on every forum i go to and it bores the heck outta me!