Sometimes Darwin and Evolution do not work

There is a rule I live by in my industry.

“Your success is my success, and my success is your success.”

Invariably, both of you will benefit from this endeavor.

Get your employer to pay for your training if they are willing.

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.

Actually, you must have missed a few of my remarks, like wehere I cinceeded that ADD/ADHD MAY exist.  I would think that concession to your remarks would have made more impact.

Alas, I guess I’ll just go back to my reading… I am really enjoying Dianetics  :roll:

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

Rob.

im a transmission system operator, what that means is i handle all the high voltage switching in the tennessee valley, while keeping evryone in 8 states with power, you know the guys that caused the blackout in the northeast in 04, that is what i try to prevent from happening in the south east usa

Thanks Jermofoot . . .
Hmmmm
i’m not sure how to best dive in here.
well . . .here goes.
For one - you’re right.  Do not confuse homeopathy with “natural remedies”.  And keep in mind that the thing that tends to separate the “natural producst” from “pharmaceuticals” is that while many pharmaceuticals are natural, they ALL are subject to many trials demonstrating efficacy and elucidating side effects.  Furthermore their pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics are well known.  So-called “natural products” - while invariably “natural” do not have the studies to back them up, nor is there much in terms of side-effect, pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic literature available.
Homeopathy is the idea that “like treats like”.  If you have a disorder/symptom complex, than the theory is that something that causes this - if given in an immeasurably tiny dose (like by diluting it by 10 nine times) should cure this.  The question is - how do you know that it is the substance that is curing it, and not some impurity in the glassware (kind of a joke really).
We had a homeopath come to give a lecture to our class.  She basically mocked herself (non-intentionally, of course).  She said stuff like:
“homeopathic cures are the safest and most efficatious treatments available”
“i nearly killed one of my children and gave another one asthma with homeopathic remedies”
“we all know that the adenovirus causes adenocarcinoma”  (this is utter nonsense.  If this were true, many of us with a common cold would die of cancer).

Having said that, there have been some trials out there:
Reference 
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-43. 
Study design: 
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 
Setting: 
Other (homeopathic practitioners) 
Synopsis 
The authors performed a systematic review of randomized trials. They found 186 trials of which 119 met the authors inclusion criteria. From these, 89 provided enough data to perform meta-analysis. Studies were rated for quality. Subjects receiving homeopathy were twice as likely to benefit compared to placebo (OR 2.45, CI 2.05-2.93). If only high quality studies are used (n=26), the benefit was less (OR 1.66, CI 1.33-2.08).

@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.

You need to have the Japanese expand into Asia ASAP. They must build IC’s in Asia to achieve this. Send armor into the Russian capital as quickly as you can…