Jayray 0 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I could have put this in one of the other threads, but I wanted to start fresh. Some friends and I were talking about "young earth" vs. "old earth" and he mentioned the following book that I might want to read....“ The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder. He said that it talks of how the Big Bang could actually be reconciled with Genesis. This was based on the theoretical gravitational pull at the "center" of the BB and it's effect on time. This could actually slow time (relative time) enough that he said we are actually still in the 7th day.....relative to the "center" that is....I may be completely screwing this up, but that is what I got from him. I was just curious if any one on here had read or heard of that book?Jayray Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Bump Link to post Share on other sites
coesillian 0 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Bump Link to post Share on other sites
Jayray 0 Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 I guess I will be "earning" that $20 for the rest of my life, eh?nh Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I guess I will be "earning" that $20 for the rest of my life, eh?nhWe thought it was funny.I haven't read the book, so I didn't have anything to add, which normally doesn't stop me but did this timne. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Some friends and I were talking about "young earth" vs. "old earth" and he mentioned the following book that I might want to read....“ The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder. He said that it talks of how the Big Bang could actually be reconciled with Genesis. This was based on the theoretical gravitational pull at the "center" of the BB and it's effect on time. This could actually slow time (relative time) enough that he said we are actually still in the 7th day.....relative to the "center" that is....sounds like the author has read just enough cosmology literature to where he is able to make up enough expert-sounding (but blatantly unscientific) BS to sell books to ignorant christians, who of course tend to eat this stuff up because it validates their pre-set beliefs. either that or he is a scientist who is being deliberately dishonest to sell books to ignorant christians. take your pick.that's not how it works - there is no "center" to the big bang - it happened everywhere in space, and there is no relativity issue with time moving slower at any point in the past. for that to happen there would need to be an absolute unchanging background frame of reference of some kind - so he's blatantly using general relativity to prove his point while combining it with a concept that invalidates it : ) Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm Link to post Share on other sites
KramitDaToad 0 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Answers In Genesis don't like Schroeder's work either.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4356news8-2-2000.aspNot sure if it's because they don't get any money from his book sales or if it's because Schroeder is Jewish and hasn't been 'perfected' yet. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Answers In Genesis don't like Schroeder's work either.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4356news8-2-2000.aspNot sure if it's because they don't get any money from his book sales or if it's because Schroeder is Jewish and hasn't been 'perfected' yet.i presume AIG doesn't like him because he's contradicting everything they've ever stood for - since his view is that the earth IS old, but the seventh, sixth etc "days" referred to in genesis are billions of years long relative to the first "day" due to GR time dilation from higher gravity now than at the big bang.as indicated anyone with even the most basic high school level understanding of GR would know this is blatantly nonsensical. seeing as how he's a former nuclear physics professor with multiple doctorates, i would say that qualifies him as a liar/charlatan rather than someone who is genuinely deluded. Link to post Share on other sites
Jayray 0 Posted October 26, 2007 Author Share Posted October 26, 2007 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfmCrow....Very informative link...I appreciate it.Jayray Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Crow, the Dictionary called.It wants you to stop borrowing the word "blatantly" so much. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Crow, the Dictionary called.It wants you to stop borrowing the word "blatantly" so much.3 times in 2 posts? err.. ok i guess, mr. word policeman just trying to emphasize how obvious it is that this guy is not promoting anything scientific - he is just another swindler using his credentials to sell books containting what he knows to be BS to believers who know nothing about these subjects. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 3 times in 2 posts? err.. ok i guess, mr. word policeman I am no word policeman.I am President and Supreme Dictator for Life of words.You blatantly disregard my standing in the world of words again and I will make a blatant example of you blatantly. Blatant. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now