Science is the key/ Not Religion

I accept. For clarifications that all need to have in mind, here is what I am going to be arguing: -science and religion can work together -Christianity is the "religion" we are talking about -science is not better nor less important than Christianity -science IS less important than the God I worship -Christianity is the key, not science. But I am NOT saying that science can't be accepted along with Christianity. All I'm going to argue is that God is more important than the mainstream, modern-day findings in science. First of all, science changes. Many times, evolutionists have gotten it all wrong yet they still presented it to the public as fact, not the truth which was that it was hypothesis/assumption. For example: the Miller-Urey experiment, thought to prove how the Big Bang could have happened. The hypothesis remained untested until 1953, when University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller reported an experiment in which methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (thought to be the components of the "primitive" atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated past a high-voltage electric spark to simulate lightning. This provided the energy to break the chemical bonds of the compounds present, and the resulting free radicals combined to form a mixture of simple organic compounds, including trace quantities of some amino acids. Crucial to the success of the experiment was Miller"s water trap in which the amino acids generated could dissolve and thus be protected from subsequent destructive contact with the spark. But on the hypothesized primordial Earth with no oxygen (and therefore no ozone), the products would have been exposed to destructive ultraviolet rays. This is so even if they reached the oceans, because UV radiation can penetrate tens of metres of water. Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller"s apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth. The public got the news that the Big Bang was proven to be able to happen, but they didn't learn that it was a false until nearly 20 years later! Another whammy to the public was Darwin's Tree of Life. Plenty of suitable sedimentary deposits (i.e. in which organisms could have been preserved as fossils) exist within the late Precambrian and Cambrian strata. One cannot argue the ancestors might have not possessed preserved hard parts. In Africa and Australia, geologists have discovered sediments, dated by evolutionary conventions at over three billion years old, which contain fossilized single-celled organisms. The lack of intermediates where these should have been found lies in stark conflict with evolutionary predictions. Another difficulty is the existence of "living fossils". Some of the fossilized ancestors are allegedly hundreds of millions of years old, essentially identical to those alive, and yet many have left no fossil evidence during this supposed vast interval. The lack of evolutionary change, in spite of a constantly changing physical and ecological environment, is glaring. [1] These are just a couple examples of the mainstream science in that time--half a century ago--and it proves that many times, scientists get things wrong and the "facts" that get out to the public and into elementary school textbooks can actually be proven wrong over the next decades or so. Secondly (before I conclude), religion which is in this case Christianity, can prove some things that science usually cannot do very well if at all. Christianity's Holy Book, the Bible, is filled top to bottom with miraculous, amazing, yet true accounts in history and science . Some people say there is such a thing as historical science. I agree that there is such a concept, and sometimes the science is what proves that the events, accounts, or places in the Bible really happened/were there, although most of the time the science is not as stable or trustworthy as actual journals and people recalling personally what really happened. Science nowadays is dominated by politics. Criticism of Einstein, the big bang, and other mainstream theories is not allowed in the mainstream whereas in all other human endeavors including music, art, literature, business, politics and engineering, opposing ideas are necessary for coming up with the best solutions humans can muster. The NPA encourages diverse opinion, believing that better truths will emerge. [2] Bill Maher and Bill Nye agree that "religion is the enemy of science." Why? Because they don't want to admit to the facts in science that prove the Bible. My conclusion is that science and religion are the key and science alone cannot fully explain anything--especially the origin of life. Thank you and good luck! SOURCES [1] http://answersingenesis.org... [2] http://www.thescienceforum.com... [3] http://www.glennbeck.com...