Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_gdemetz]

I will never believe that something can spring out of nothing. I think that that is the modern day equivalent to saying that there is only one universe.

[_Equality]

I will never believe that something can spring out of nothing. I think that that is the modern day equivalent to saying that there is only one universe.

You might want to buy a book that discusses modern cosmology and/or quantum physics. Otherwise you risk people thinking that you are ignorant of those subjects.

[_gdemetz]

I am somewhat familiar with some of the latest concepts which seem to be ever evolving, such as the string theory, etc. However, I still stand by my statement.

[_J Green]

So, just to summarize:

1. I've issued six CFRs on BC's claim that everything the Church publishes is doctrine.

2. BC cannot produce a statement from the Church to this effect. When pressed, however, he points to other texts that don't make this claim either.

3. When I bring up the contents of these other documents to demonstrate that they don't make the claim, BC doesn't respond.

4. Along the way, BC has made other claims that turn out to be false. For example, he claimed that DHO had called the CH doctrine. When I demonstrated this to be false, BC did not respond.

Just for the sake of getting to seven, I'm going to issue one more CFR. That way there will be the same number of CFRs as dwarves, brides, and sins.

CFR.

[_gdemetz]

I'm sorry Green. Maybe BC is busy. If you have a question, I will at least try to answer.

[_Nomomo]

I will never believe that something can spring out of nothing. I think that that is the modern day equivalent to saying that there is only one universe.

There's more to nothing than we knew
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/scien ... thing.html

[_Nomomo]

A Universe From Nothing
Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[_Milesius]

David Albert's critique of loudmouth ignoramus Lawrence Krauss.

[_Equality]

David Albert's critique of loudmouth ignoramus Lawrence Krauss.

From Wikipedia:

Krauss is one of the few living physicists referred to by Scientific American as a "public intellectual", and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics.

Krauss received undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first class honours from Carleton University in 1977, and was awarded a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982.
After some time in the Harvard Society of Fellows, he became an assistant professor at Yale University in 1985 and associate professor in 1988. He was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, professor of astronomy, and was chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University from 1993 to 2005.

Yeah, he's a total "ignoramus." Do you think maybe it's possible to disagree with someone, to take on the ideas and arguments they advance, without resorting to this kind of ad hominem? It really only makes YOU look like an ignoramus.

[_Milesius]

David Albert's critique of loudmouth ignoramus Lawrence Krauss.

From Wikipedia:

Citing wikipedia always impresses the hell out of me.

Krauss is one of the few living physicists referred to by Scientific American as a "public intellectual"...

Who gives a ****?

Yeah, he's a total "ignoramus." Do you think maybe it's possible to disagree with someone, to take on the ideas and arguments they advance, without resorting to this kind of ad hominem? It really only makes YOU look like an ignoramus.

Outside of his discipline, Krauss is a loudmouth ignoramus, as he has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate.