Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_Chap]

I wonder if Milesius has anything but abuse to contribute to this discussion?

[_Equality]

Citing wikipedia always impresses the hell out of me.

Did Wikipedia get some facts wrong in the entry on Krauss that I quoted?

[_Tarski]

Citing wikipedia always impresses the hell out of me.

Did Wikipedia get some facts wrong in the entry on Krauss that I quoted?

I have to admit that my respect for Krauss has taken a hit.
The physics that underlies and motivates the title of Krauss' book is interesting and can be a part of any conversation about the old (and admittedly dubious) question of "something from nothing". But I don't think Krauss' book is very good and it certainly isn't deep.

Most importantly, Krauss is acting like an ass. There is definitely something he doesn't quite get.

Of course, he is a big shot and I am not as I am sure he would be thinking if not saying outloud if I got the chance to question him on this. Oh well.

I also think it is embarrassing that Dawkins seems unable to manage anything but fawning acquiescence to Krauss' authority.

More generally, I am discouraged by the anti-philosophy trend in physics. The range and styles of thinking in philosophy is too broad to to simply oppose "it". I had just gotten used to the rampant mathematical and logical confusions so common is physics and now this.
I am sure that Krauss and others like him would demand an inappropriate kind of precision from philosophers (for the kind of question at hand) but the funny thing is that when they are confronted with their confusions about (and lack of rigor with respect to) the mathematics they would just consider it pedantry. But it is far from it. (I have examples if anyone is interested)

[_Equality]

I have to admit that my respect for Krauss has taken a hit.
The physics that underlies and motivates the title of Krauss' book is interesting and can be a part of any conversation about the old (and admittedly dubious) question of "something from nothing". But I don't think Krauss' book is very good and it certainly isn't deep.

Most importantly, Krauss is acting like an ass. There is definitely something he doesn't quite get.

Of course, he is a big shot and I am not as I am sure he would be thinking if not saying outloud if I got the chance to question him on this. Oh well.

I also think it is embarrassing that Dawkins seems unable to manage anything but fawning aquiessence to Krauss' authority.

More generally, I am discouraged by the anti-philosophy trend in physics. The range and styles of thinking in philosophy is too broad to to simply oppose "it". I had just gotten used to the rampant mathematical and logical confusions so common is physics and now this.
I am sure that Krauss and others like him would demand an inappropriate kind of precision from philosophers (for the kind of question at hand) but the funny thing is that when they are confronted with their confusions about (and lack of rigor with respect to) the mathematics they would just consider it pedantry. But it is far from it. (I have examples if anyone is interested)

Those are all valid criticisms. Much better than just calling him an ignoramus.

[_hatersinmyward]

Krauss also stated that the universe is expanding from earth's perspective, and from the perspective of every other point in space(star, planet, etc..)

So If the Big Bang wasn't centralized and scientists cannot point us to the location in space where the big bang actually occurred, the big bang never happened.

The big bang theory might hold water if our part of the cosmos was all moving in the same direction, which it's not.

[_beefcalf]

So If the Big Bang wasn't centralized and scientists cannot point us to the location in space where the big bang actually occurred, the big bang never happened.

True, true.

But then, of course, if you cannot point to the exact spot where your parents conceived you, then you must have never happened, either.

[_Tarski]

Krauss also stated that the universe is expanding from earth's perspective, and from the perspective of every other point in space(star, planet, etc..)

So If the Big Bang wasn't centralized and scientists cannot point us to the location in space where the big bang actually occurred, the big bang never happened.

The big bang theory might hold water if our part of the cosmos was all moving in the same direction, which it's not.

You are confused. Krauss' statement is totally correct.

[_asbestosman]

Krauss also stated that the universe is expanding from earth's perspective, and from the perspective of every other point in space(star, planet, etc..)

He's right.

So If the Big Bang wasn't centralized and scientists cannot point us to the location in space where the big bang actually occurred, the big bang never happened.

You shouldn't think of the big bang like the explosion of a bomb. It's more like a huge expanding loaf raisin bread--so huge there are no sides or corners. There is no center.

[_hatersinmyward]

Will you please site resources?

It takes life to make life, in every instance known to man. Any other method is just a theory.

[_Drifting]

I will never believe that something can spring out of nothing.

...and yet that seems to be the case for the contents of your posts.