What does worship have to do with science?

[Hans Blaster]

Episcopal, Methodist, Pilgram. United Church of Christ. The churches I have been a part of.

Sorry, I'm not going to take your word that these churches require *science* degrees before entering seminary. I think you're going to need to find a seminary from one of these denominations and a link to their entrance requirements. (I still don't find your claim plausible.)

I know there are plenty of pastors with two-year degrees. But they are not mainline denominations.

So what? Most 4-year degrees from universities are not actual in science. Having a 4-year degree is by no means "proof" that a person has a science degree. (The actual degree itself would show that.)

If you are sick do you go to a doctor or do you just find a medical assistant to help you?

Not sure what this has to do with any thing here. Pastors aren't medical professionals, and no one should go to them for medical advice, so this isn't relevant to your "science degree requirement" claim.

The pastor in my Pilgrim church did not really even accept Creationism. It just did not line up with Science.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Plenty of Christians don't accept creationism.

At least a lot of the popular books at the so-called Christian book store. I went through one of those bookstores while I was waiting for my wife when she was shopping. I could not find much of anything in a book that reflected the Bible. The only one I could find was a woman called Stormie.

Not sure what that was.

 

[Diamond72]

(I still don't find your claim plausible.)

You do not find AI that can do physics better than you plausible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You do not find AI that can do physics better than you plausible.

No, I don't. No AI understands physics (or anything). It doesn't have "understanding". It is just a heuristic for stringing together phrases, words, and ideas that its training set show to be correlated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm going to reply again, because I did not look at what you were clipping a reply to.

You do not find AI that can do physics better than you plausible.

The thing I do not find plausible is your claim that *any* seminary *requires* a 4-year science degree for admission. Ministry/theology is not a scientific subject or derived from science (like medicine) so there is no logical reason to require such for admission.

You have made a claim (again a frankly non-plausible claim), provide evidence, because until you do I will dismiss it without hesitation.

Challenge: Provide a link to the admissions department of *any* Christian seminary that lists a 4-year university degree in *science* as an entrance requirement.

 

[Diamond72]

The thing I do not find plausible is your claim that *any* seminary *requires* a 4-year science degree for admission.

The word you are looking for is "Many" not "any". Are you serious? You must be a fake Ph.D. because you have to have an undergraduate degree to go to graduate school. Here you were scamming me all along.

• The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) is a membership organization of over 270 seminaries and graduate schools of theology in North America. Their website includes a directory of member schools, which provides information on each school's admissions requirements: Find a School
• The Princeton Theological Seminary, a well-known seminary in the United States, requires applicants to have a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, but does not specifically require a degree in science. Their admissions requirements can be found here: https://www.ptsem.edu/admissions/applying-to-seminary
• Similarly, the admissions requirements for the Yale Divinity School do not include a specific requirement for a science degree. Their admissions requirements can be found here: https://divinity.yale.edu/admissions/apply-now
• The University of Notre Dame's Graduate School offers a Ph.D. program in theology, which does not require a degree in science for admission. Their admissions requirements can be found here: https://graduateschool.nd.edu/programs/theology/

 

[Diamond72]

No, I don't. No AI understands physics (or anything). It doesn't have "understanding". It is just a heuristic for stringing together phrases, words, and ideas that its training set show to be correlated.

1. Process vast amounts of information quickly: A chatbot can process a large amount of information quickly and efficiently, and can access vast databases of information in a fraction of the time it might take a person to do the same.
2. Work 24/7: Chatbots can work continuously, without the need for breaks or sleep, and can handle a large volume of inquiries or tasks without becoming fatigued.
3. Provide consistent and standardized responses: A chatbot can provide consistent and standardized responses to inquiries, ensuring that users receive the same level of service and information every time they interact with the bot.
4. Multitask: A chatbot can handle multiple conversations or tasks simultaneously, whereas a person may struggle to do so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The word you are looking for is "Many" not "any". Are you serious? You must be a fake Ph.D. because you have to have an undergraduate degree to go to graduate school. Here you were scamming me all along.

• The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) is a membership organization of over 270 seminaries and graduate schools of theology in North America. Their website includes a directory of member schools, which provides information on each school's admissions requirements: Find a School
• The Princeton Theological Seminary, a well-known seminary in the United States, requires applicants to have a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, but does not specifically require a degree in science. Their admissions requirements can be found here: https://www.ptsem.edu/admissions/applying-to-seminary
• Similarly, the admissions requirements for the Yale Divinity School do not include a specific requirement for a science degree. Their admissions requirements can be found here: https://divinity.yale.edu/admissions/apply-now
• The University of Notre Dame's Graduate School offers a Ph.D. program in theology, which does not require a degree in science for admission. Their admissions requirements can be found here: https://graduateschool.nd.edu/programs/theology/

See, now how hard was that? Like I said, I didn't buy your claim that a *science* degree was required for divinity school/seminary, and as you have just demonstrated, they do not.

 

[Diamond72]

Sorry, I'm not going to take your word that these churches require *science* degrees before entering seminary.

Why do you even care? What difference does it make to you? I saw someone spin their wheels so much. You keep revving up the engine, but you do not seem to be going anywhere.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why do you even care? What difference does it make to you? I saw someone spin their wheels so much. You keep revving up the engine, but you do not seem to be going anywhere.

You keep making ridiculous claims (apparently in an effort to chain religion to science). I don't feel like letting them all go. Claiming seminaries require a BS in science is obvious nonsense.

 

[Diamond72]

Claiming seminaries require a BS in science is obvious nonsense.

For the most part, in the catholic church priests are required to have a bachelor's degree. The degree doesn't need to have a spiritual affiliation, but studying philosophy, theology and religion can help. In addition, priests attend seminary for four years (five years if they haven't yet studied philosophy).

apparently in an effort to chain religion to science

I am using the same method science uses to prove the Bible is true. So to reject the Bible you have to reject the Science that shows us how true the Bible is. I can keep repeating this for you as many times as you want until you get a basic understanding of what is going on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For the most part, in the catholic church priests are required to have a bachelor's degree. The degree doesn't need to have a spiritual affiliation, but studying philosophy, theology and religion can help. In addition, priests attend seminary for four years (five years if they haven't yet studied philosophy).

No one said anything about catholic priests, you started this with a claim about main line protestant seminaries.
I'm also not sure why I should care.

I am using the same method science uses to prove the Bible is true. So to reject the Bible you have to reject the Science that shows us how true the Bible is. I can keep repeating this for you as many times as you want until you get a basic understanding of what is going on.

Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

 

[Diamond72]

I'm also not sure why I should care.

I have been wondering that all along.

 

[Diamond72]

Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

If you do not want to know, don't ask.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you do not want to know, don't ask.

Because that's what I thought you were implying with the 200,000 books about Gen 1. Thanks for confirming.

There is nothing more to my question.

 

[Diamond72]

Because that's what I thought you were implying with the 200,000 books about Gen 1.

I told you about 50 times now that is an article written by your fellow Physics PhD. Fine with me if you want to disregard an MIT graduate. But that is more a reflection on you and your feelings about how much a person with a PhD degree in Physics can be trusted.

For me, his formula is the ONLY way to explain Genesis chapter one. You of course do not have a better explanation. The fact that his formula works is the main consideration. It solves the problem and gives us an answer. Again, if you have a better way to solve the problem, then show us what you have. Other than denial, of course. Because of Science fact or Science fiction, the issue still needs to be resolved. Lots of people like Musk and DeGrasse are very heavily into Science Fiction. Oh wait, Degrasse is someone else with a Physics PhD, which you seem to think we should disregard and not believe. (Columbia University) Do you have a problem with the Ivy League? Or just Harvard, MIT & Columbia? I understand if you are going to attack your fellow PhD's you may as well go after the best schools also. As that is where they graduated from.

For people that want to know what is going on. Gerald Schroeder is a physicist and author who has proposed a theory that reconciles the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of the age of the universe. According to his theory, the six days of creation described in Genesis are not literal 24-hour days but rather represent longer periods of time, perhaps billions of years. He is OEC, but he has studied Kaballah and that is a part of his theory which is not accepted by Science because Kabbalah and Hasidic is faith based oral tradition.

 

[Diamond72]

Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

Your attitude seems to be that truth does not exist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I told you about 50 times now that is an article written by your fellow Physics PhD.

I think you exaggerate the number.

Fine with me if you want to disregard an MIT graduate. But that is more a reflection on you and your feelings about how much a person with a PhD degree in Physics can be trusted.

My disdain from Schroeder and his "model" has nothing to do with my feelings about MIT grads or the trustworthiness of Physics Ph.D.s. It is *entirely* about Schroeder and his garbage "model".

For me, his formula is the ONLY way to explain Genesis chapter one.

Explain Gen 1 with physics? I see no reason to do that. It predates the creation of physics and is not formed in anything like a physical explanation. It is a theological work and you do it disservice by trying to gussy it up with bad physics (or rather echoing Schroeder's attempt to do so).

You of course do not have a better explanation.

For the physics of Genesis 1? I have no need to do so. If you want to understand the cosmology of the universe use physical cosmology. Attempting to fit Gen 1 to observational data (what Schroeder claims to match with his "model"), is doomed to fail.

The fact that his formula works is the main consideration.

It doesn't as I showed conclusively in a post from (I think) January. @sjastro has also demonstrated serious, fatal flaws in Schroeder's model.

It solves the problem and gives us an answer. Again, if you have a better way to solve the problem, then show us what you have. Other than denial, of course.

Start here: (this is obviously not *my* work, but it is a basic and thorough reference on the topic)

Principles of Physical Cosmology

Then we can talk about updates to complete the consensus cosmology if you so like.

Because of Science fact or Science fiction, the issue still needs to be resolved.

I love Science Fiction and have since I was a boy, Trek, Who, Asimov, and so many others.

I have also loved Science since I was a boy and have read a wide variety of basic/popular texts, and done the real work to know part of it very well and contribute original results.

Gerald Schroeder is a legitimate scientist, but his model is still garbage.

Lots of people like Musk and DeGrasse are very heavily into Science Fiction.

Not sure why that matters.

Oh wait, Degrasse is someone else with a Physics PhD, which you seem to think we should disregard and not believe. (Columbia University)

I believe Dr. Tyson's Ph.D. is in astronomy, but I don't disregard him for that. You're making things up. (Particularly, you're making things up about *me*.

Do you have a problem with the Ivy League? Or just Harvard, MIT & Columbia?

I just don't think they are particularly special. Their work is not "higher" than everyone else's work. They are colleagues the same as any other working scientists regardless of the doctoral institutions or current employers. Their work falls or rises on its merits, not their pedigree.

I understand if you are going to attack your fellow PhD's you may as well go after the best schools also. As that is where they graduated from.

Sigh. I attacked Schroeder's cosmological "model" because it is garbage and I question his motives or discernment because he should know better.

For people that want to know what is going on. Gerald Schroeder is a physicist and author who has proposed a theory that reconciles the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of the age of the universe. According to his theory, the six days of creation described in Genesis are not literal 24-hour days but rather represent longer periods of time, perhaps billions of years. He is OEC, but he has studied Kaballah and that is a part of his theory which is not accepted by Science because Kabbalah and Hasidic is faith based oral tradition.

For people who want to know what is going on...

Gerald Schroeder is a physicist who worked primarily on the detection of radioactivities (like radon) from natural and non-natural sources. He had a successful career doing that and I would not challenge his work or expertise on those things. Unfortunately, in what he makes clear is his motivation to demonstrate that the creation week of Genesis 1 corresponds to the measured old Universe of observational cosmology, Schroeder has put together a "cosmological model" that attempts to make the two fit, and they don't. It is a bad model that does not fit the observational data and whose parameters were just chosen so that it might seem to match the two timescales. It is, as I showed in a long post a couple months ago, numerology dressed up to look like physics.

Mr. "Diamond7" seems rather bothered with me that I have dismissed Schroeder's "cosmological model" repeatedly. First with off-hand dismissals (I'd seen it before, but not given it much attention) and then in a post a few months ago, I made a through debunking of Schroeder's "model" and showed that it was nothing but numerology. He also seems particularly bothered that I won't give deference to scientists based on their educational or work institutions.

 

[Diamond72]

My disdain from Schroeder and his "model" has nothing to do with my feelings about MIT grads or the trustworthiness of Physics Ph.D.s. It is *entirely* about Schroeder and his garbage "model".

Without his model, the days in Genesis 1 do not line up with science if the days are the same length. He does not look at the end going back. He looks at the beginning going forward. This is why the ONLY word we need to know to understand the Bible is the beginning. Of course, love is the most important word.

Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the commentators who deal with the spiritual physics of the universe, often referred to as Kabala. The commentary tell us a day in Genesis one contain all the ages of the world. How can six 24 hour days contain all the ages of the world?

 

[sjastro]

I told you about 50 times now that is an article written by your fellow Physics PhD. Fine with me if you want to disregard an MIT graduate. But that is more a reflection on you and your feelings about how much a person with a PhD degree in Physics can be trusted.

For me, his formula is the ONLY way to explain Genesis chapter one. You of course do not have a better explanation. The fact that his formula works is the main consideration. It solves the problem and gives us an answer. Again, if you have a better way to solve the problem, then show us what you have. Other than denial, of course. Because of Science fact or Science fiction, the issue still needs to be resolved. Lots of people like Musk and DeGrasse are very heavily into Science Fiction. Oh wait, Degrasse is someone else with a Physics PhD, which you seem to think we should disregard and not believe. (Columbia University) Do you have a problem with the Ivy League? Or just Harvard, MIT & Columbia? I understand if you are going to attack your fellow PhD's you may as well go after the best schools also. As that is where they graduated from.

For people that want to know what is going on. Gerald Schroeder is a physicist and author who has proposed a theory that reconciles the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of the age of the universe. According to his theory, the six days of creation described in Genesis are not literal 24-hour days but rather represent longer periods of time, perhaps billions of years. He is OEC, but he has studied Kaballah and that is a part of his theory which is not accepted by Science because Kabbalah and Hasidic is faith based oral tradition.

Gerald Schroeder having a PhD in physics doesn't make him an expert outside his field.
When it comes to cosmology he is clearly a crackpot as has been illustrated in other threads.

Nobel Prize winners representing the height of excellence in their field of research can look quite ordinary when straying outside their field of expertise.
This is known colloquially as the Nobel disease.

Here are some examples.

• Pierre Curie (Physics, 1903) — His support for psychic medium Eusapia Palladino.[8]
• Marie Curie (Physics, 1903 and Chemistry, 1911) — Her support for Eusapia Palladino (though less so than Pierre, see above).
• John William Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (Physics, 1904) — Paranormal, ghosts[9][10]
• Philipp Lenard (Physics, 1905) — Deutsche Physik[11]
• Joseph Thomson (Physics, 1906) — Psychic, dowsing and paranormal[12]
• Alexis Carrel (Physiology or Medicine, 1912) — eugenics and Nazi racial theories.[13]
• Charles Richet (Physiology or Medicine, 1913) — ESP, paranormal, dowsing, ghosts[14]
• Albert Einstein (Physics, 1921) — Endorsed a psychic in 1932.[15][16]
• Erwin Schrödinger (Physics, 1933) — Quantum mysticism and global consciousness[17][18][19] and cruelty to cats
• Otto Stern (Physics, 1943) — Psychokinesis and Pauli effect[20]
• Ernst Boris Chain (Physiology or Medicine, 1945) — Evolution denial[21]
• Wolfgang Pauli (Physics, 1945) — Pauli effect, psychokinesis and paranormal[22][23]
• Hideki Yukawa (Physics, 1949) — Intuition and mysticism superior to logic and reason, anti-science and Taoist relativism[24]
• Linus Pauling (Chemistry, 1954, and Peace, 1962) — Vitamin C quackery/orthomolecular medicine[25]
• William Shockley (Physics, 1956) — Racialism and eugenics[26]
• James Watson (Physiology or Medicine, 1962) — Promoter of racialism[27][28]
• Eugene Wigner (Physics, 1963) — Quantum mysticism[citation needed]
• John Eccles (Physiology or Medicine, 1963) — Quantum consciousness[29]
• Julian Schwinger (Physics, 1965) — Pushed cold fusion as late as 1991.[30]
• Alfred Kastler (Physics, 1966) — Paranormal[31]
• Hannes Alfvén (Physics, 1970) — Plasma cosmology[32]
• Ivar Giaever (Physics, 1973) — Global warming denial[33]
• Brian Josephson (Physics, 1973) — Psychic and paranormal phenomena.[34] Cold fusion.[35] Water memory and homeopathy.[36][37]
• Nikolaas Tinbergen (Physiology or Medicine, 1973) — Crank theories of autism[38]
• Kary Mullis (Chemistry, 1993) — Generally barking mad. AIDS denial, alien abduction, Aliensdidit, astrology, astral projection, conspiracy theories, cosmic raccoons, global warming denial, ozone denial. Possibly related to his heavy use of LSD.[39][40]
• Walter Gilbert (Chemistry, 1980) — AIDS denial[41]. Although there are claims he is no longer skeptical of the claim HIV causes AIDS. The source for that seems to be a message board post that no longer exists.
• Richard Smalley (Chemistry, 1996) — Creationism, Intelligent Design and evolution denial[42][43]
• Louis J. Ignarro (Physiology or Medicine, 1998) — Herbalife[44]
• Luc Montagnier (Physiology or Medicine, 2008) — Homeopathy, water memory, autism quackery, AIDS cured by nutrition and vaccine hysteria[45][46][47]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Without his model, the days in Genesis 1 do not line up with science if the days are the same length. He does not look at the end going back. He looks at the beginning going forward. This is why the ONLY word we need to know to understand the Bible is the beginning. Of course, love is the most important word.

This is clearly the error Schroeder makes, trying to align Gen. 1 with modern understanding of the age of the Universe. It is best not to try.

I can't really find a good reason to try and make them compatible. If you are a believer, either you think there is metaphor, or allegory, or something similar in the Gen. 1 story and there is no need to "prove" the age, or you take an absolutist/literalist position on the implied date (YEC) of 6000 years and find some reason to reject the related modern science. The "intermediate" position of scientific accuracy and being some how literal (in event, if not timing) seems only to lead to bad science, and what others have called bad theology.