Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory

Google Video Link

B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
PhD Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This was followed by seven years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and nuclear physics. His formal theological training includes fifteen years of study under the late Rabbi Herman Pollack, Rabbi Chaim Brovender and Rabbi Noah Weinberg.

Of course, what the question would be is where we make the zero point. On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, we blow the Shofar three times during the Musaf service. Immediately upon blowing of the Shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam - today is the birthday of the world."

This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana does commemorate a creation, but not the creation of the universe. We blow the Shofar three times to commemorate the last of the three creations that occurs in the Six Days of Genesis. First, there's a creation of the entire universe and the laws of nature. Then on Day Five, there's a creation that brings us the Nefesh, the soul of animal life. Finally, at the end of Day Six, there's a further creation that brings us the Neshama, the soul of human life. Rosh Hashana commemorates not the first or second of the creations, but the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. Rosh Hashana falls right here. Which means that we start counting our 5758 years from the creation of the soul of Adam.

There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly).

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

www.geraldschroeder.com...

Mod edit: Please don't cut and paste whole articles. Just a few paragraphs and a link.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Byrd]

Several things I see here that are flaws in his argument.

1. Because you're trying to fit 2 distinct sets of time frames into each other, he could easily distort this into 100 billion years, 1 trillion years, 500,000 years, or anything else. Once again, its the problem with creation in that its philosophy is "Here is our conclusion" lets go find evidence for it.

2. The idea of "Absolute Time" violates the theory of relativity.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

"Here is our conclusion" lets go find evidence for it.

Yea, tis a bit stupid, but it's exactly why creationism will never be part of science, because it's reverse science.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Several things I see here that are flaws in his argument.

1. Because you're trying to fit 2 distinct sets of time frames into each other, he could easily distort this into 100 billion years, 1 trillion years, 500,000 years, or anything else. Once again, its the problem with creation in that its philosophy is "Here is our conclusion" lets go find evidence for it.

2. The idea of "Absolute Time" violates the theory of relativity.

I think you missed it.
Its far more about perception, due to the expansion of time/space.

NOT a day/era theory

i simply see a guy trying to justify and rationalise a reason so he doesnt have to throw his faith away

he knowns the physics and science is right so cant do a hovind and just make it all up, so he then has to justify and rationalise his beliefes against the evidence of science and find away to make it work with science

its appologetics at its best

thats why most high level sceintists(who are religeous) tend to be panthiests that enjoy a bit of theist ceremony now and again for various reasons

Originally posted by noobfun
i simply see a guy trying to justify and rationalise a reason so he doesnt have to throw his faith away

he knowns the physics and science is right so cant do a hovind and just make it all up, so he then has to justify and rationalise his beliefes against the evidence of science and find away to make it work with science

its appologetics at its best

thats why most high level sceintists(who are religeous) tend to be panthiests that enjoy a bit of theist ceremony now and again for various reasons

I cant imagine you watched it.

great care was taken to refute this very idea.

Maby its for the best, you may have had to think of something relevant to say about the theory if you had.

He is good platform but it is hardly his idea.
Similar topic covered here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

your right i only saw the first 15 minutes and he did exactly the same as every other similar video for every other faith

apologetics to make the faith fit the facts

it doesnt matter if its 31 sentances or 3million and 1

is you need step 4 and 6 first to make step 1 happen its fundamentally flawed

ill watch the rest and see if he really does try and do somthing different

but if your starting from a flawed position chances are your gonna end in one too

Originally posted by BlackProjects
He is good platform but it is hardly his idea.
Similar topic covered here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

very interesting , thanks!

very interesting video. thanks.
i wasn't aware of these facts...
perhaps indeed the relativity theory
is encoded within the bible.
and 6 days are in fact 15.75 billion years.
and time was created on day 1.
fascinating!

Originally posted by eventHorizon
very interesting video. thanks.
i wasn't aware of these facts...
perhaps indeed the relativity theory
is encoded within the bible.
and 6 days are in fact 15.75 billion years.
and time was created on day 1.
fascinating!

the prophecy to prove jesus is the messiah is shaky dont expect relativity to pop up without massive reinterpretation


yepp same thing exactly as the others he just trys to justify it with science better but at least he admits its a flawed metaphor to begin with at least theres a few less god of the gaps arguments then normal

and still doesnt make sense of why everything is in completley the wrong order to be real

wonder if he actually beleives this personally, or he was hired because he's a jewish physacist ... chances are the second one

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]

This guy as some of you call him is one of the most brilliant Physists in the world. To be on staff of MIT is beyond brilliant. Just to get into MIT is not an easy thing to do. I doubt most who commented actually listened to the Professor much less can comprehend him. It's like he points out, the song a bird is born with, or listening too is the song he wants to sing no matter what else he hears. It's the same with people. People are so ingrained with Ideas they don't truly listen to anything that is opposed to thier thinking they just start looking to tear it apart rather than give it a good chance. The Professor reconciles creation and Science perfectly.