"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

The speed of light does seem to have slowed down as measured in classic experiments over the past few hundred years!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-VO46xzM5Q

-
Barry Setterfield's hypothesis has been completely discredited. Hardly surprising since he had no relevant qualifications. Even Answers in Genesis have backed away from him, and that is saying something.
I quote......
Having taken quite a pounding until then regarding his statistical analysis, Setterfield begins by defining his 'Co-efficient of Determination,' r2, and its relation to the standard correlation coefficient. He follows this up by again (correctly) explaining the significance of an r2 value of 1, but finally twigs to the many objections by adding, "It was subsequently noticed that [the r2 value] had been obtained at an incorrect point in the computer programme, and a check gave the value as r2 = 0.99+ which appeared in the International Edition."

(This value, unfortunately for Setterfield, turns out to be wrong as well. In a later publication of the same journal, Setterfield again revises his value of r2 downward to 0.986 based on, of all things, correspondence from readers who calculated it for themselves. In all, five different values for r2 were published.)

At this point, one might almost give Setterfield the benefit of the doubt and accuse him only of gross incompetence and mathematical illiteracy, but the saga does not end just yet. A cursory examination of Setterfield's data on which his curve is based reveals that the exact formula for the curve is heavily dependent on two values from the 17th and 18th century, and it behooves us to ask just how much confidence we can place in values this old, or whether Setterfield has even recorded the values properly.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

No. He won't. At least not in any that would satisfy anyone with an IQ approaching average or better.

MrP

Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman.
Setterfield, B., and Norman, T., The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Invited Research Paper, SRI, August 1987. (Available from Lambert Dolphin).

Since then, two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis proposed that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second and they believe that it has been slowing down ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Albrecht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo
http://www.weeklyscientist.com/ws/articles/constants.htm

... and this is no marginal increase in light speed it is thought that it could be very high indeed at the creation of the universe (about 10^60 times higher!!!):eek:

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman.
Setterfield, B., and Norman, T., The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Invited Research Paper, SRI, August 1987. (Available from Lambert Dolphin).

Since then, two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis proposed that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second and they believe that it has been slowing down ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Albrecht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo
http://www.weeklyscientist.com/ws/articles/constants.htm

... and this is no marginal increase in light speed it is thought that it could be very high indeed at the creation of the universe (about 10^60 times higher!!!):eek:

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html

-
Setterfield’s figures are also dead wrong! He says that Roemer in 1675 and Bradley in 1728 measured the speed of light at 301,300 and 301,000 kilometers per second, respectively. Yet the real historical figures were, in fact, Roemer at 214,300 kilometers per second and Bradley at 295,000 kilometers per second.

Had Setterfield reported these accurate figures, originally, he could have demonstrated that the speed of light increased over the past 300 years, instead! Did Setterfield deliberately misrepresent his data, or did he make an honest mistake? We’ll never know because young-Earth creationists seldom, if ever, print retractions. Instead, they often repeat dead, discredited myths indefinitely. Why? Doesn’t the Bible encourage honesty among Christians?

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

Since then, two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis proposed that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second and they believe that it has been slowing down ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Albrecht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo
http://www.weeklyscientist.com/ws/articles/constants.htm

... and this is no marginal increase in light speed it is thought that it could be very high indeed at the creation of the universe (about 10^60 times higher!!!):eek:

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html

-
You are an uber troll. This is the opening sentence of the evidence you offer for C-decay in support of your argument that the Universe is 6000 years old.
-
TORONTO, August 17 (UPI) -- Recent observations of metallic atoms in gas clouds 12 billion light years from Earth may help to confirm the theories of four physicists who have been working for over a decade in virtual obscurity on an outlandish notion -- that cherished fundamental constants of nature, such as the speed of light, might not be constant after all.

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
Barry Setterfield's hypothesis has been completely discredited.

The only problem is that he is not alone!!!!
Here is a summary of the state of play on VSL
http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/earlycosmos.html

... and here is further information on the issue
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/532/2/L87/995554.text.html

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

The only problem is that he is not alone!!!!
Here is a summary of the state of play on VSL
http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/earlycosmos.html

... and here is further information on the issue
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/532/2/L87/995554.text.html

-
None of them are saying the Universe is 6000 years old. And none have offered proof that c has decayed to such an extent that your belief could be true.
The only person to claim that has been completely discredited.

POINTBREAK

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
You are an uber troll. This is the opening sentence of the evidence you offer for C-decay in support of your argument that the Universe is 6000 years old.
-
TORONTO, August 17 (UPI) -- Recent observations of metallic atoms in gas clouds 12 billion light years from Earth may help to confirm the theories of four physicists who have been working for over a decade in virtual obscurity on an outlandish notion -- that cherished fundamental constants of nature, such as the speed of light, might not be constant after all.

-
How can you offer me this as proof that the Universe is 6000 years old?
Recent observations of metallic atoms in gas clouds 12 billion light years from Earth????

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
How can you offer me this as proof that the Universe is 6000 years old?
Recent observations of metallic atoms in gas clouds 12 billion light years from Earth????

If the speed of light wasn't constant since Creation then a distance of 12 billion years light years does not indicate that it took 12 billion years for the light to get here.
Light years are a measure of distance (measured in relation to the present speed of light) and they are not a measure of time.

Another proof that light years don't equate to time years (and that light moved at speeds vastly greater than the current speed of light in the past) is the fact that the Big Bang Universe is supposed to be 13.75 billion Evolutionist years old ... yet the observable edge of the Universe is 46 billion light years away - and it has a diameter of over 90 billion light years!!!

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

On the job discrimination note, I think employers should be fully entitled not to employ someone whom they consider a ****wit, or indeed a douchebag, or indeed a combination of both

Fair enough ... but if an employer refuses to employ anybody from a particular faith on the basis that they consider all members of that faith to be 'douchebags' ... even though there are many eminently qualified persons from that faith who are available for employment ... that is religious discrimination ... and the employer would be guilty of a criminal offense under the Equality Acts!!!

If the employer was employing people to promote their particular faith then they may be able to legitimately discriminate in favour of persons belonging to their own faith ... although, even this exception is increasingly being tightened up.
It could therefore be legitimate to discriminate in favour of Evolutionists when the job involves the promotion of a belief in Evolution (which should be privately funded) ... but religious discrimination is outlawed in relation to all other jobs - and especially publicly funded posts.

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

Fair enough ... but if an employer refuses to employ anybody from a particular faith on the basis that they consider all members of that faith to be 'douchebags' ... even though there are many eminently qualified persons from that faith who are available for employment ... that is religious discrimination ... and the employer would be guilty of a criminal offense under the Equality Acts!!!

If the employer was employing people to promote their particular faith then they may be able to legitimately discriminate in favour of persons belonging to their own faith ... although, even this exception is increasingly being tightened up.
It could therefore be legitimate to discriminate in favour of Evolutionists when the job involves the promotion of a belief in Evolution (which should be privately funded) ... but religious discrimination is outlawed in relation to all other jobs - and especially publicly funded posts.

I should probably point out that I think labour should be seen as a product sold by the employee to the employer. If I were an employer I'd likely be disinclined towards hiring someone if I suspected them to be a moron. I'm not aware of the law's stance on this, but if a prospective employee were a creationist, or a Scientologist, or a conspiracy theorist, then that would certainly reduce the chance of my hiring them for any work requiring intelligence

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
Setterfield’s figures are also dead wrong! He says that Roemer in 1675 and Bradley in 1728 measured the speed of light at 301,300 and 301,000 kilometers per second, respectively. Yet the real historical figures were, in fact, Roemer at 214,300 kilometers per second and Bradley at 295,000 kilometers per second.

Had Setterfield reported these accurate figures, originally, he could have demonstrated that the speed of light increased over the past 300 years, instead! Did Setterfield deliberately misrepresent his data, or did he make an honest mistake? We’ll never know because young-Earth creationists seldom, if ever, print retractions. Instead, they often repeat dead, discredited myths indefinitely. Why? Doesn’t the Bible encourage honesty among Christians?

It does indeed look like Setterfields figures for Romer and Bradley were incorrect.
It also looks like the high light speeds occurred during the inflation period in the immediate aftermath of the Creation of the Universe ... although the decay of light speed over a longer period hasn't been ruled out.

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I should probably point out that I think labour should be seen as a product sold by the employee to the employer.

What 19th Century 'sweat shop' did you step out of???
Labour is a persons livelihood ... and very often the 'employer' is just another employee who happens to be a manager within the particular organisation ... and it is often the taxpayer (of all faiths and none) or the shareholders (of all faiths and none) in a large corporation that are paying both the manager's and the new employee's wages!!!

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

If I were an employer I'd likely be disinclined towards hiring someone if I suspect them to be a moron. I'm not aware of the law's stance on this, but if a prospective employee were a creationist, or a Scientologist, or a conspiracy theorist, then that would certainly reduce the chance of my hiring them for any work requiring intelligence

If you objectively concluded that somebody was less intelligent than other candidates, of course you would be obliged to employ the most intelligent candidate ... but if you subjectively 'suspected' i.e. had the bigoted belief, that everybody of a particular faith was a 'moron' (irrespective of the fact that many were eminently qualified to do the job) then you would be incapable of sitting on any interview panel where people from that faith might present themselves for interview.
You might even be incapable of holding a managment position over such employees, if you were unable to leave your bigoted opinions at home.

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

If the speed of light wasn't constant since Creation then a distance of 12 billion years light years does not indicate that it took 12 billion years for the light to get here.
Light years are a measure of distance (measured in relation to the present speed of light) and they are therefore not a measure of time.

Another proof that light years don't equate to time years is the fact that the Big Bang Universe is supposed to 13.75 billion years old ... yet the observable edge of the Universe is supposed to be 46 billion light years away - and it has a diameter of over 90 billion light years!!!

-
But you have offered me evidence from Scientists who are taking measurements from an event 12 billion light years away as proof that the universe is 6000 years old. Apparently you are prepared to accept and use the evidence of these Scientists even though that contradicts your own beliefs. Its like you have baked me a cake to prove that cakes don't exist. Have you mixed up your'e tablets today?
Your "proof" demonstrates that you have no knowledge of the subject you are arguing against. A simple search by yourself will answer that question for you.

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
But you have offered me evidence from Scientists who are taking measurements from an event 12 billion light years away as proof that the universe is 6000 years old. Apparently you are prepared to accept and use the evidence of these Scientists even though that contradicts your own beliefs. Its like you have baked me a cake to prove that cakes don't exist. Have you mixed up your'e tablets today?
Your "proof" demonstrates that you have no knowledge of the subject you are arguing against. A simple search by yourself will answer that question for you.

This issue isn't scientifically settled at all yet ... and neither Creation Scientists nor Evolutionists have reached all-encompassing answers yet.
The point that I am making is that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past ... Creation Scientists put the speed higher and for a longer period of time than Evolutionists ... and that is why a universe that is less that 10,000 years old is billions of light years in diameter!!!!:pac:

The mental gymnastics you perform, JC, are nothing short of outstanding.

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

This issue isn't scientifically settled at all yet ... and neither Creation Scientists nor Evolutionists have reached all-encompassing answers yet.
The point that I am making is that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past ... Creation Scientists put the speed higher and for a longer period of time than Evolutionists ... and that is why a universe that is less that 10,000 years old is billions of light years in diameter!!!!:pac:

-
You really just don't understand science at all. All creationists are the same. You pluck things out of the air and throw them into a discussion as fact. Its a very common trait. My favourite is, If men are descended from monkeys How come there are still monkeys? When you are discredited you come up with some other crackpot idea. I assume you can't help it.
For you to be right all it takes is for all science to be wrong. Mathematics, Biology, Physics, Cosmology, Archeology, Astronomy and the rest. In fact for you to be right all science would have to be a complete load of old bollox.

The Mad Hatter

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I should probably point out that I think labour should be seen as a product sold by the employee to the employer.

I've never heard it phrased like that before, but I like it.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
This issue isn't scientifically settled at all yet ... and neither Creation Scientists nor Evolutionists have reached all-encompassing answers yet.
The point that I am making is that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past ... Creation Scientists put the speed higher and for a longer period of time than Evolutionists ... and that is why a universe that is less that 10,000 years old is billions of light years in diameter!!!!

POINTBREAK
You really just don't understand science at all. All creationists are the same. You pluck things out of the air and throw them into a discussion as fact. Its a very common trait. My favourite is, If men are descended from monkeys How come there are still monkeys? When you are discredited you come up with some other crackpot idea. I assume you can't help it.
For you to be right all it takes is for all science to be wrong. Mathematics, Biology, Physics, Cosmology, Archeology, Astronomy and the rest. In fact for you to be right all science would have to be a complete load of old bollox.

Please stick to answering the quote of mine that you quoted ... instead of going off on a general rant ... about some 'strawmen' that you have thought up!!!:eek:

So...
1. Isn't it true that this issue isn't scientifically settled at all yet ... and neither Creation Scientists nor Evolutionists have reached all-encompassing answers to the VSL issue?
2. Isn't it true that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past?
3. Isn't it legitimate for Creation Scientists to put the speed higher and/or for a longer period of time than Evolutionists ... given the fact that neither side can directly verify the conditions in the immediate aftermath of creation?
4. And doesn't this possibly explain why a universe that is less that 10,000 years old is billions of light years in diameter?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AhSureTisGrand
I should probably point out that I think labour should be seen as a product sold by the employee to the employer.

The Mad Hatter
I've never heard it phrased like that before, but I like it.

You don't have much of a social conscience ... do you???

Of course, a potential employee must 'sell' themselves and their skill set to any potential employer ... but if that employer decides that, because of their religion, they not going give them a fair chance to 'pitch' for the job ... the whole thing becomes a farce!!!,
In any business relationship there are two sides to every transation ... and equity demands that both sides treat each other fairly and with respect.
The employer also has to convince whoever is paying his/her salary that they operate a fair employment policy ... and if they have a policy that 'no Creationists need apply' ... then they should expect every fair-minded customer to be appalled at such naked bigotry ... and to ask themselves if their particular group could be next on such an arbitrary employment blacklist!!!:(

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

What 19th Century 'sweat shop' did you step out of???
Labour is a persons livelihood ... and very often the 'employer' is just another employee who happens to be a manager within the particular organisation ... and it is often the taxpayer (of all faiths and none) or the shareholders (of all faiths and none) in a large corporation that are paying both the manager's and the new employee's wages!!!

The manager isn't really the employer though. It's the owner/s. I think the owner should be allowed direct his staff not to hire certain groups of people (though I doubt the company would be very successful, mind). Although the State isn't allowed discriminate in such a way, prejudices will nonetheless affect its recruiting staff, so some characteristics will put certain prospective employees at a disadvantage, even if it is not openly stated

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

You don't have much of a social conscience ... do you???

Of course, a potential employee must 'sell' themselves and their skill set to any potential employer ... but if that employer decides that, because of their religion, they not going give them a fair chance to 'pitch' for the job ... the whole thing becomes a farce!!!,
In any business relationship there are two sides to every transation ... and equity demands that both sides treat each other fairly and with respect.
The employer also has to convince whoever is paying his/her salary that they operate a fair employment policy ... and if they have a policy that 'no Creationists need apply' ... then they should expect every fair-minded customer to be appalled at such naked bigotry ... and to ask themselves if their particular group could be next on such an arbitrary employment blacklist!!!:(

It's in the employer's (by this I mean owner/s) interest to choose the best staff, is it not? Employers who don't choose the best staff will suffer. I don't think any large company could get away with a policy such as "no x need apply", as customers wouldn't tolerate it, but almost every piece of information about a prospective employee will have an effect on their perceived value, so it's somewhat futile to dictate that employers should ignore some pieces of information when recruiting staff.

As for the social conscience thing, I think employees should have the right to set their prices without being bound by the minimum wage,which serves to harm the most vulnerable in society

Delirium

J C wrote: »

it is objectively verifiable that an intelligence/intelligences unknown created life ... faith is required to believe otherwise (in the case of Evolutionism) ... and to believe it was the God of the Bible (in the case of Mono-theists).

If it was verifiable that an intelligence created life, it wouldn't be unknown.

Ye are the guys with a problem determining where your science ends ... and your faith begins (PS ye move into the realm of unfounded faith at the very start ... when ye start claiming that life spontaneously generated itself ... and it continues right through every 'just so' (and ever-changing) story told by every evolutionist!!

it's hardly faith seeing as scientists provide evidence for their work, can't say the same for supporters of the creation myth.

... it is openly favouring the religion of Atheistic Humanism by mandating that its (and only its) 'origins story' is told in every public school in America.

it's called science. The government shouldn't be mixing in your creation myth, or any other religions, into the science syllabus.

Everybody is 'religious' when it comes to the origins question i.e. they either believe that a god or gods did it ... or they believe that it spontaneously generated itself ... either belief is held by faith ... and faith alone ... but the theistic hypothesis is strongly supported by the physical evidence before us which shows inordinate levels of CFSI in all living creatures.

I'll let your own contradiction speak for itself.

... so where is the scientific (i.e. repeatably verifiable) evidence that frogs turned into princes ... with nothing added but millions of years ... and billions of mistakes?

you're the only one talking about frogs becoming princes. Your really have an obsession with fairy tales being the explanation for things.

It is discrimination when the 'standards' are such that they include one religion ... and exclude others!!!!
... and when the so-called 'standards' promote the myth that frogs turned into princes ... with nothing added but millions of years ... and billions of mistakes ... what more need I say!!!:eek:

but science doesn't exclude people of any religion, or are you saying that there are no Christian scientists?

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

Please stick to answering the quote of mine that you quoted ... instead of going off on a general rant ... about some 'strawmen' that you have thought up!!!:eek:

So...
1. Isn't it true that this issue isn't scientifically settled at all yet ... and neither Creation Scientists nor Evolutionists have reached all-encompassing answers to the VSL issue?

-
As I said you don't understand science. Nothing is ever "settled" in science. If more information became available then science, unlike religion, takes that into account.
I imagine that if there is a God he is very disappointed in creationists. He would probably say. "I gave you a brain, why didn't you use it?

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

Please stick to answering the quote of mine that you quoted ... instead of going off on a general rant ... about some 'strawmen' that you have thought up!!!:eek:

So...

2. Isn't it true that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past?

-
No, its not. A Varying Speed of Light (VSL) is one of the proposed models to explain some problems in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. It is not the same as Barry Setterfield's c-decay theory. Yet you contrive to make it the same thing.

robindch

J C wrote: »

.. a more blatant example of job discrimination on the basis of religion you are unlikely to meet!!!

First off, being a creationist is not a requirement of christianity. And regardless of that, if the religious beliefs are insane, why on earth should somebody be forced to hire a nutter? You'll recall from the Dover Trial that one of the leading creationists had to admit that astrology was as scientific as creationism. Are you suggesting that universities should teach astrology as well, lest they be seen to "discriminate" against astrologers?

J C wrote: »

It is outrageous to compare any group to Holocaust Deniers ... but it is even more outrageous to compare Creationists to Holocaust Deniers ...

Not really. Both groups have similar ethical and intellectual standards and both spread lies and nonsense for political reasons.

J C wrote: »

when many Creationists are Jews and Born Again Christians ... whose immediate ancestors were vicims of the Holocaust!!!!!!

Poe'd!

J C wrote: »

You, on the other hand, don't fit this pattern ... you are quite prepared to publicly proclaim your prejudicial views on Creationists ... and the fact that if it was up to you, they would never be employed within their chosen professions.

I don't see why a university should hire somebody to teach biology who doesn't have a clue about biology and chooses to lie about it.

J C wrote: »

Creationists [...] now occupy a position in society similar to the Jews after the passing of the Nuremberg Laws in Germany

Poe'd a second time!

I can't believe that you're comparing the savage, lethal persecution of Jews by a nation which was predominantly christian and protestant, to the treatment of creationists today.

Wow.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

The point that I am making is that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past ... Creation Scientists put the speed higher and for a longer period of time than Evolutionists ... and that is why a universe that is less that 10,000 years old is billions of light years in diameter!!!!:pac:

Can I ask a silly question, and this is not directed to you JC and I would prefer a non delusional / trolling answer? What do evolutionists have to do with the speed of light? I thought that was physicists...? Have I missed something?

MrP

Genghiz Cohen

MrPudding wrote: »

Can I ask a silly question, and this is not directed to you JC and I would prefer a non delusional / trolling answer? What do evolutionists have to do with the speed of light? I thought that was physicists...? Have I missed something?

MrP

Just about to ask that.

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The manager isn't really the employer though. It's the owner/s.

It's generally the managers who do the recruiting.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I think the owner should be allowed direct his staff not to hire certain groups of people (though I doubt the company would be very successful, mind).

... a good recipe for social unrest in a multi-cultural society ... and totally illegal ... and rightly so!!!

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Although the State isn't allowed discriminate in such a way, prejudices will nonetheless affect its recruiting staff, so some characteristics will put certain prospective employees at a disadvantage, even if it is not openly stated

... which is a good but regrettable reason for Creation Scientists to keep their heads down ... and their mouths shut ... when in the company of Evolutionists!!!

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

It's generally the managers who do the recruiting

Which does not make them employers, unless you've also decided to redefine this

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

It's in the employer's (by this I mean owner/s) interest to choose the best staff, is it not? Employers who don't choose the best staff will suffer.

It is indeed in the interest of the shareholders to recruit the best staff ... but some people are so bigoted that they would be more than willing to not recruit the best people, if they belong to a group, like Creationists ... and indeed many other stigmatised groups!!!

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I don't think any large company could get away with a policy such as "no x need apply", as customers wouldn't tolerate it, but almost every piece of information about a prospective employee will have an effect on their perceived value, so it's somewhat futile to dictate that employers should ignore some pieces of information when recruiting staff.

It shouldn't be that way ... but it seems to be reality that Creationists can be discriminated against with impunity ... and so they must remain largely 'invisible' to the rest of society ... and known only to themselves and God!!!!

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

As for the social conscience thing, I think employees should have the right to set their prices without being bound by the minimum wage,which serves to harm the most vulnerable in society

There are positives and negatives to every policy.