My husband was yanked out of a semi-boring job with IBM and planted in the mathematics department at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his doctorate and wrote a thesis on a small bit of mathematics that bears his name and is now an intrinsic part of industrial design in virtually every field.

Kennedy poured federal money into research and development, focusing on space exploration, but research in this field was gulped up by industry and business and put to commercial use. New products and technology were developed and the U.S. exploded economically:

After World War II the efficiency and productivity of the US economy improved markedly. From 1945 to 1975 output per hour of labor increased 120 percent while output per standard unit of energy increased 23 percent. Work hours in agriculture fell from 19.2 to 7.5 percent also during this time.

As the 1960 presidential election campaign got under way, the 1960-1961 recession began. John F Kennedy’s 1960 campaign promise “ to get America moving again “ referred to the American economy. He wanted economic growth at an annual rate of 4-6 percent and unemployment at 4 percent.

Kennedy knew that the economy was in big trouble so he sent congress an economic growth and recovery package consisting of twelve measures. They were an increase in the minimum wage from $1.00 to $1.25 per hour and an extension of the minimum wage to a larger pool of workers, an increase in unemployment compensation plus increased aid to children of unemployed workers, increase social security benefits to a larger pool of people, emergency relief for feed grain farmers, area redevelopment, vocational training for displaced workers, and federal funding for home building and slum eradication.

By mid 1962 he was convinced the economy needed additional stimulation that could be provided through a tax cut. Kennedy suggesting that business needed the tax relief that would be provided by liberalizing the depreciation allowance on new plants and equipment and by giving business a 7 percent investment tax credit.

In early 1963 inflation was stable, corporate profits were at a record high, and the stock market had rebounded, but unemployment was still too high at 5.7 percent.

President Johnson inherited a strong economy from president Kennedy. The growth during his presidency between 1964 and 1965 gave him an annual dividend of $4-5 billion in extra revenues to spend. For the first two years of Johnson’s presidency the inflation rate was just under 2 percent. In 1965 inflation began to pick up slightly, but the GNP (gross national product) grew by $9 billion and unemployment stood at 1.4 percent.

The economy was looking better during the winter of 1966: real growth was 9 percent, and with unemployment at 3.8 percent the economy was robust. As it reached 1967 Johnson administration became concerned with inflation. On August 3 Johnson asked congress to impose a temporary 10 percent income tax surcharge. The surcharge became a law on June 28 1968 that was tied to a $6 billion budget reduction.

In 1968, Johnson’s almost last month in office, the growth rate was 4 percent and the unemployment rate was only 3.3 percent, but the inflation rate had reached 4.7 percent.

US History: Economics of the 1960's

People with smarts know their history and are not afraid of science -- and research and development.

Originally Posted by simone

My husband was yanked out of a semi-boring job with IBM and planted in the mathematics department at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his doctorate and wrote a thesis on a small bit of mathematics that bears his name and is now an intrinsic part of industrial design in virtually every field.

Kennedy poured federal money into research and development, focusing on space exploration, but research in this field was gulped up by industry and business and put to commercial use. New products and technology were developed and the U.S. exploded economically:

US History: Economics of the 1960's

People with smarts know their history and are not afraid of science -- and research and development.

I don't see an argument.

I was there. I saw it.

My husband was one of millions who fueled a new revolution of innovation and discovery in the U.S. and energized our economy.

This is the sort of thing that is beyond your feeble understanding.

Do not tax yourself.

Originally Posted by simone

Do not tax yourself.

Very well.

sci·ence Noun 1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the PHYSICAL and NATURAL world through observation and experiment.


a·the·ism Noun: The THEORY or BELIEF that God does not exist.

Science is limited to testing natural events, God is super-natural. The belief for or against the exsistance of God is not scientific.

Here is how it applies.
If you have a truck load of apples, a thief will take an apple. If you give the thief an education, he will take the whole truck because he is still a thief.

So how do you change a thief?
#1 force. =violence, rules, punishment.
#2 love = kindness, charity, forgiveness.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,



Any moral statement such as" you ought to do, say, believe, this" or you shouldn't do, say, believe, that" comes from a religious point whether you believe in God or not. So what reason is there to argue against God unless you don't agree with the moral position?

Originally Posted by hwyangel

sci·ence Noun 1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the PHYSICAL and NATURAL world through observation and experiment.


a·the·ism Noun: The THEORY or BELIEF that God does not exist.

Atheism is the lack of a belief that a god exists.

As natural beings, produced by a natural system, we have no way to access the supernatural, which by definition is not natural. There can be no point of contact.

"Atheism is the lack of a belief that a god exists."
Science is not lack of belief either. It begins as theory or possibility. Atheism already discredits any theory or possibility.

Originally Posted by hwyangel

"Atheism is the lack of a belief that a god exists."
Science is not lack of belief either. It begins as theory or possibility. Atheism already discredits any theory or possibility.

You know so much about atheism that you must be an atheist!

If Athiesm is the lack of a belief that a God exists then athiests just recognise that there is no evidence of any existing God.
No one can rationalise the existence of a diety.
All religion is intuitive.
I dont believe that athiests have a lack of the belief in God anyway.
I find that they generally assert that there is no God.
The lack of a belief in God describes agnosticism far better than athiesm.

Actually, theology deals with the study of God or the Creator. Science deals with the study of the creation only. Theology cannot contradict science if it remains within its parameters, so also science if it remains within its boundaries.

Conflict comes when one party out of foolish arrogance crosses over the limit into the other zone and babbles his or her absolute conclusions. Contradictions and fights starts then.

Actually, science is neither theistic nor atheistic, but people who are behind it can either be atheistic or theistic and color it respectively only for the reasons known to them. For pure science cannot prove or disprove God, only the men behind it try too hard to manipulate to either prove or disprove, both of which are wrong! I am saying this because in today's times, a pure right-minded scientist is as rare as finding a saint among priests.

In short, all such debates won't lead anyone anywhere, just running in bigger and bigger arrogant circles, shortens your own life doing nothing worthwhile, just vanity and more vanity! Nobody is impressed, except your own sick minds!

Originally Posted by Navigator

Actually, theology deals with the study of God or the Creator. Science deals with the study of the creation only. Theology cannot contradict science if it remains within its parameters, so also science if it remains within its boundaries.

The study of truth has no 'parameters'. How can you study 'the creator' when all you have to discern it's existence much less nature is the so called 'creation' and yet still remain independent of 'science' which studies that 'creation'.

How about this delineation of things: Reason deals with truth, faith deals with ignorance. Science is based on reason, theology is based on faith.

Reason bound only by the knowable, for all intensive purposes the 'non-creation' is the 'non-real' by the very virtue that it cannot survive the touch of reason (in this case called science).

Originally Posted by SeriousSister08

I have been watching debates like this go on for a while now and still have not seen anyone who believes that science is not atheistic give a logical sound reason for why it is not. So I'm challenging anyone who believes science is not atheistic to a debate. I would like to be able to have my say in the matter, because I believe that not only has science proven to be atheistic through the years, but it has also proven be to more harmful then good in a number of ways. Let me list a few...
1. Morals
2. Medicine
3. Concience
If anyone would like to debate me on this, then please feel free to challenge me.

Science requires evidence.

TESTABLE hypothesis.
Atheism doesn't provide that.

Atheism is about discounting other positions because of lack of evidence...
... but then atheism itself lacks evidence.

It would be more accurate to assess religion as agnostic, IMO.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Actually, theology deals with the study of God or the Creator. Science deals with the study of the creation only. Theology cannot contradict science if it remains within its parameters, so also science if it remains within its boundaries.

Conflict comes when one party out of foolish arrogance crosses over the limit into the other zone and babbles his or her absolute conclusions. Contradictions and fights starts then.

Actually, science is neither theistic nor atheistic, but people who are behind it can either be atheistic or theistic and color it respectively only for the reasons known to them. For pure science cannot prove or disprove God, only the men behind it try too hard to manipulate to either prove or disprove, both of which are wrong! I am saying this because in today's times, a pure right-minded scientist is as rare as finding a saint among priests.

In short, all such debates won't lead anyone anywhere, just running in bigger and bigger arrogant circles, shortens your own life doing nothing worthwhile, just vanity and more vanity! Nobody is impressed, except your own sick minds!

Hi!

I just wanted to repeat what you said in my post...