Dr Gerald Schroeder

The only point of potential conflict that I'm aware is the discussion about origins - do we take an evolutionary view, an intelligent design belief or literal seven day Genesis opinion.

As far as I'm concerned science works just as well regardless of our religious beliefs or the lack of them.

H2O is exactly the same irrespective of religious outlook - two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom comprise a molecule of water. E=MC^2 has been demonstrated very well - the resulting fireball obliterates anything and anyone in its path, atheist and fundamentalist alike.

When we get on an aircraft which is a highly technical machine based on scientific principles, it will fly or crash regardless of who is on board or what they believe.

The supposed "conflict" boils down to the argument about origins and nothing else.

Diamond7 said:

I think cancer is a result of people being in conflict with themselves and not able to work out that conflict.

Click to expand...

No. Cancer is caused by many things. Plants can have tumours: are they in conflict with themselves?

Diamond7 said:

This is why so many people want your approval so they can pull you into their corruption and drag you down with them.

Click to expand...

No. It’s just people disagreeing with you.

This Dr. Gerald Schroeder is no different than an atheist or anyone else (Hindu, Muslim,etc.) who has never trusted in Jesus for Eternal Life.

Diamond7 said:

Usually when people with cancer are around me they get better. I wish that worked with other things.

Click to expand...

So now you are magic?

Diamond7 said:

We do not know that. I think a lot of Hebrew people are closet Christians. They just do not make a public confession about it. There are lots of things they are quiet about. Most all religions follow the teachings of Jesus. Even the ones that go back before he was born were influenced by Jesus. Of course that does not make them saved and Jesus is the only way to go to Heaven. We have to put our faith in God to save us.

Click to expand...

That may be right as the Dr could have at some point in his life believe in Jesus for Eternal Life. But i was just going with the averages, the Dr being an Orthodox Jew, that he would not believe Jesus was The Promised Messiah.

Diamond7 said:

So does that mean he does not talk about religion in the classroom?

We know that atheism is rampant at our universities. Do they follow the same standard or is there a double standard?

Click to expand...

Everyone follows the same standard, at least in my experience as far as I can remember. No professors ever brought up religion (or-lack-of-religion) in my physics classes (or any other science classes for that matter) in undergraduate or graduate school at a public university.

Diamond7 said:

We do not know that. I think a lot of Hebrew people are closet Christians. They just do not make a public confession about it.

Click to expand...

You are really reaching now. There isn't any real reasons for Jews that come to follow Jesus not to just become Christians. The vast majority of Jews aren't Christians, particularly "closeted" ones.

Diamond7 said:

There are lots of things they are quiet about. Most all religions follow the teachings of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Oh good grief, no.

The closest non-Christian religion "following Jesus" would be Islam which considers Jesus to be a great prophet (bigger than Elijah, but lesser than Mohammad), but they don't think he was god or died for their sins.

Diamond7 said:

Even the ones that go back before he was born were influenced by Jesus. Of course that does not make them saved and Jesus is the only way to go to Heaven. We have to put our faith in God to save us.

Click to expand...

Is there some sort of violation of causality going on here?

Diamond7 said:

Now your having to quote out of context to try to make a point.

Click to expand...

Et tu?

Diamond7 said:

What religion does not follow the golden rule?

Click to expand...

The "golden rule" predates Jesus.

Diamond7 said:

Dr. Gerald Schroeder is a physicist and theologian who has taught at several universities and institutions. He earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and has taught at the college and graduate levels at MIT, Harvard University, Brandeis University, and the College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.

Dr. Schroeder is known for his work in the intersection of science and religion, particularly in the areas of cosmology and the origins of the universe. He has written several books on the subject, including "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom" and "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible".

My question is how do you sort through science and religion? I assume that Schroeder taught science at MIT and Harvard. So does that mean he does not talk about religion in the classroom? Does he just stick to the textbook and teach that? Then if you want to know about his religion you have to read one of his books?

We know that atheism is rampant at our universities. Do they follow the same standard or is there a double standard? Because science in and of itself is agnostic. As I said before: Punctuated equilibrium was developed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. Gould an atheist died early from cancer. Eldredge agnostic is still alive and may still even be working. I think cancer is a result of people being in conflict with themselves and not able to work out that conflict.

It is not what we believe so much as what we tell others, that God is going to hold us accountable for. This is why so many people want your approval so they can pull you into their corruption and drag you down with them.

Click to expand...

Not Schroeder again.
The moral of the story is Jewish physicists who are experts in the field of nuclear physics should not embarrass themselves trying to explain cosmology using religion.
Even the anti-science site "Answers in Genesis" won't have a bar of Schroeder probably because he is Jewish and not Christian.

Since Dr. Schroeder offers no details supporting his alleged Hebrew word relationships, readers should not take him seriously ........

Click to expand...

Diamond7 said:

My question is how do you sort through science and religion?

Click to expand...

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Diamond7 said:

Dr. Gerald Schroeder is a physicist and theologian who has taught at several universities and institutions. He earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and has taught at the college and graduate levels at MIT, Harvard University, Brandeis University, and the College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.

Dr. Schroeder is known for his work in the intersection of science and religion, particularly in the areas of cosmology and the origins of the universe. He has written several books on the subject, including "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom" and "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible".

My question is how do you sort through science and religion? I assume that Schroeder taught science at MIT and Harvard. So does that mean he does not talk about religion in the classroom? Does he just stick to the textbook and teach that? Then if you want to know about his religion you have to read one of his books?

We know that atheism is rampant at our universities. Do they follow the same standard or is there a double standard? Because science in and of itself is agnostic. As I said before: Punctuated equilibrium was developed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. Gould an atheist died early from cancer. Eldredge agnostic is still alive and may still even be working. I think cancer is a result of people being in conflict with themselves and not able to work out that conflict.

It is not what we believe so much as what we tell others, that God is going to hold us accountable for. This is why so many people want your approval so they can pull you into their corruption and drag you down with them.

Click to expand...

Since the so called enlightenment, science has had double standards.
Yes it is supposed to be agnostic , the reality is anything but.

The story of alexis carrel, ultimately Nobel laureate says it all.
A clear witness of one of the Lourdes miracles he describes it in great detail in his book,

The book was released under an assumed name Lerrac. In which he clearly believed it, and wrote about it at the time, but it was only published on his death.

He was forced into making an ambiguous statement about it in his life time, because he was assured his career would be still born if he did not, and for that reason it never made it onto the official roll call of Lourdes miracles
( which shenanigans is discussed by Theilleur, head of the medical commission in his book).

Nothing has changed.

A couple of universities / dna labs point blank refused to test samples from Eucharistic miracles, on the grounds they ” must be false” .
When it was pointed out that , they were supposed to be objective , and this was their chance to prove or discredit it, they then be came defensive saying “ if this turns out to be true, we would have to shut our faculty because its charter is based on Darwinian thought” so we cant Do it. So they refused to even do tests!

Reality is the scientific establishment refuses to get involved in things that opposes its core atheist faith And assumptions. Eg consciousness is a chemical process , so verified out of body experience ergo must be false.
Thats a faith statement not a scientific one.

Even worse was the dean of bialystock university making false claims overriding the faculty pathologists views in total opposition to the evidence, because they didn’t line up with his atheism. the pathologist was then silenced.

Dont ever pretend academia is objective.
It isn’t around things it does not “like.”
It goes beyond the theistic . All sorts of things science establishment does not “like”

if you want to see how crass scientists are - look at the debate at FRS between wolpert and sheldrake on telepathy.
Sheldrake wanted to talk about and statistical significance,( ie sheldrake was the voice of science) where wolpert( and later Dawkins in interaction with sheldrake) just wanted to talk about their belief it can’t happen.

The willingness of the shroud daters to falsify experimental evidence because reality didn’t suit their narrative.

Or look at NDE , van lommels work in a carefully controlled trial , and woerlees ridiculous and false attempts to discredit some NDE abd dismiss van lommels findings. Woerlees statements are completely dismissed by the witnesses, but it didn’t stop his nonsense.

When it comes to opposing things they don’t like, the so called scientific Critics lose all objectivity.

Diamond7 said:

There are no contradictions. Either Science is wrong or our interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Very few people understand the Bible any more than a superficial way.

Click to expand...

Nine people can interpret gravity nine different ways.

But the fact remains, under no circumstances whatsoever is gravity to be contradicted.

People can easily contradict the Bible.

But that's the point.

They are contradicting the Bible.

And they're wrong.

We're all going to meet the Author some day.

And we're all going to be shown where we contradicted His word.