Every physics student since Einstein basically knows everything he did. And then some. Hawking knows a shitload more. (-)
But to be the one to make the breakthroughs, of that caliber, it's truly amazing. Every electrician can do more with electricity than Franklin, any vp of logistcs today could run things smoother that Henry Ford. And so on.
i'm not advocating hiding or ignoring limitations of science. i just think it can be had both ways - acknowledging that science has limits while specifying that religious revelation isn't a reliable way to fill in the gaps. i mean your particular semantics seem to have the same, if unintended, effect as pandering to people who already have the notion of a NOMA-like domain of 'religious authority' loaded and ready to be validated. i apologize if i misused the term or used it unfairly. i know you are just calling it like you see it. you'll have to indulge me here, but this is an example of what i am not getting - individual feels a strong sense of self and hypothesizes that humans are special in a way other animal species are not, the essense of what makes him who he is must be something greater than his physical body, and his essence must continue after death. he calls his hypothetical essence of self a soul. multiple branches of the physical sciences find strong evidence homo sapiens are the currently most advanced product of animal evolution and that all aspects of homo sapien behavior and cognizance seem to exist in reduced capacity in lesser animals, with the key difference being that homo sapiens have the greatest ratio of brain size to body mass. neuroscience finds strong evidence human cognizance, personality, and self awareness emerge from physical processes in the brain. individual assesses his hypothesis and determines it is improbable based on the above evidence, even though he has no means to empirically test directly for the existence of a soul. this is an observation-based deduction. is this not 'scientific' just because it is indirect? would you define it as philosophical?
I read it as it all had to start somewhere. With that, and that alone, in mind, God's creation absolutely makes the most sense to me. Then, as I continue to read the Bible, going over all the history paving the way for Jesus' entry on the earth....His life, death, and resurrection......followed by incredibly wise instructions as to how I should live my life......well, you scientist types can argue away your so-called fact-based conclusions until Jesus' return. With all due respect, you're still just chasing your tails, in my opinion.
I don't deny how great his early discoveries were, though he made quite a few mistakes that he admitted. The second half of his life wasn't quite so successful as a physicist.
So you don't associate the bible and history together? I would like to know why you disagree with 99% of historians. Please enlighten me
Yes, that is what I take from Jesus is the way to lead your life, do unto others and so forth, divinity on the other hand not so much. There is a lot of wisdom in what he taught.
Hubble proved him wrong about the universe being static. I'm pretty sure that he was wrong when he famously stated, "God doesn't play with dice." And also about a lot of things related to quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and and here is a video with one of the leading scholars that explains that he knows almost all historians that all agree that, in fact, a historical Jesus exists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY [video=youtube;yRx0N4GF0AY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY[/video] And the response wasn't saying that the entire bible is historically accurate. Historians believe that the bible has accurate historical cities, rulers, civilizations and people thousands of years ago.
