beowulf

That doesn't even come close to explaining why they reject it.

Suffice to say that I think you are wrong. I think the Austrian economics people have a much more convincing argument.

Why? He was THE Federalist. He understood the danger of states' rights and the necessity of a national government to which the states must be subordinate. He recognized that a small national government was the problem, not the solution. He first convinced political leaders of the need to replace the Articles of Confederation, and then, as the most prolific writer of the Federalist Papers, proceeded to convince the people, and thus the states, of ratifying the Constitution. He understood the need for a national bank, and the value of a national debt (I'm not so sure he would approve of the size of the current debt, though.) He also recognized the need for government intervention in the economy. He had allegiance to no state and put his country first. He was an effective military officer, both on George Washington's staff, and as a leader of troops. He was extremely intelligent, and made no apologies for it. He was gifted in the power of persuasion, and had impressive insight into effective government. I would say those are reasons to dislike Hamilton. A Big Federal Gov is not good and is a problem. The current debt is the inevitable result of a big government. The Federal Reserve is what caused the mess we are currently in.

They aren't going to let you fly with no experience. You need to at least go through some coaching and get signed off on belly flying in the tunnel. Tunnel flying is not with out risk.

I recognize that dropzone!!!

I will be there standing in line to get in!!! Can't wait!!

I agree it's a poor choice for a title. But the rest shows who the biggest losers are with the Zero Interest Rates Policy.

From the beginning the question was presented to stevebabin. It was always for stevebabin. It is good that you guys have his back. But he always bails out when I come back with something he can't answer. You did receive an answer. Just because it didn't come from stevebabin shouldn't matter. You are just using that as an excuse to ignore the answer you were given.

This intellectual dishonesty is common with Creationists.

I can't agree with you on this. People can develop a physical dependency on alcohol that if not met will kill them. Alcoholism is somewhat of a mental problem. I strongly suspect that it's passed down from generation to generation.

Evidence shows that alcoholism is chronic. The end result is death unless intervened by insanity or jail. Science didn't cause you to be an alcoholic. Science can be used to try and understand alcoholism and find ways to deal with it. You used religion to motivate yourself to deal with your alcoholism. It works for some people and doesn't for others. It doesn't mean that religion is any more valid and it doesn't change the results of continued alcoholism.

Here is a good explanation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html "a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod." All it takes is a little faith in evolution. It's much more plausible then "God did it". There is no way to say with absolute certainty how the Bombardier Beetle evolved. Anyone that claims to have absolute certain knowledge of how it came to be is full of shit and that is what Creationism claims to know.

What does alcoholism have to do with science??

Here is a good explanation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

It's just Ron's attempt to make himself feel more important by claiming that anyone that doesn't believe like him is childish. It's really just a distraction from the reality that he has nothing to back up his beliefs.

...there's your sign. I didn't tell you to just take my word at face value. Look at the evidence yourself. Evolution has so much evidence to support it, it's overwhelming. How much research on evolution have you done?

Consistent results compared to what?

While I am not a scientist, whether you want to believe me or not I have gone to museums and looked into the evidence supporting evolution. The basic arguments are clear and not that hard to understand. Evolution is a fact of life. Only the crackpot Creationists try and say it's not. I don't take anything on faith.

If you want evidence of evolution then go to a museum. Do some research on your own. The fossil record shows the evolutionary process. Every branch of science has supported evolution from Geology to Astronomy. I have read the Bible. I have heard the arguments. The Creationists arguments contradict the evidence. No evidence has been produced to support any religion or deity. No evidence has been produced to support spiritualism or that a soul exists.

And if we didn't know how little you know about evolution or the research, this statement shows your ignorance.

I think deep down you realize that there is no real evidence to support any of your beliefs and it scares you. Faith is a bullshit idea that is used to prop up the fraud that religion and deism really is.

I don't care what he believes if he didn't make claims on this forum that are patently false.

Well, we were talking about evolution...try to focus. yet, you'll soon persist again in demanding evidence... Creationism is what has been pushed forward as an alternative to evolution. With out evidence all you have is fantasy.

There is no valid support for creationism. Faith has no support or it wouldn't be faith.

Like anyone could school someone on evolutionary biology over DZ.com!! What a silly excuse! The information is out there. All it takes is effort and with the internet you don't even have to spend a lot of money. Creationists are not interested in learning anything new they would rather believe what they want to believe.