Elder Nelson was utterly irresponsible to mock the Big Bang theory in conference. He spoke of it as if it was just made up from nothing, ironically like the religion he defends.
But the Big Bang theory was NOT just made up out of nothing. It is the result of various observations and measurements. And, it in no way pretends to be the origin of everything, just a common origin of the present observable universe.

This guy is a doctor, a cardiac surgeon who, BTW, claims to have received a revelation on the spot how to perform a new heart surgery procedure. I doubt it. Years ago a dental student got all teary in EQ class about it.

Now here's Elder Nelson mocking...not made up myth...but a rational, evidence-based discovery.

He's as stupid and as wrong as were the popes who mocked a spherical earth and the solar system. And the masses laughed at Galileo and Copernicus et al. The laughter of the audience was the most disappointing to me, representing a polarization of ignorance and a market for comments like that. For a moment I thought mormons really are just stupidly ignorant and prejudiced to enable charlatans like that.

Even IF the Big Bang theory proves wrong, it would be because there was new evidence discovered, not because we came to our senses and accepted the "gospel".

And, I resent the implication that my acceptance of the Big Bang theory represents a moral failing...heresy, apostasy, even blaspheme.

The more I hear from these "apostles", the more apparent it is that they are charlatans, and I get impatient with mormons for being so gullible and then having the audacity to call ME gullible for accepting things like the Big Bang.

What is funny about the mocking of The Big Bang Theory is I have heard other religious figures use it to justify "God's creation." It is interesting how anti-intellectual the Mormon church is even more than other churches.

Nelson may be a smart man in other areas, but he lets his position in the church make him dumber in this regard.

The BBT partly results from an effort by the Roman church to assert a scientific theory of creation that still allows for a god.

integral to its name is the word "theory" and every scientist knows exactly what that means... unproven, but consistent with the facts that we have at this time and subject to modification as soon as we have data to replace it! It's not called the Big Bang Fact or Big Bang Law or Big Bang Truth.

You are right to point out the irony of the criticism coming from some one who is expert on God's Laws!

For someone who's "facts" are things like The First Vision, The Nephite Civilization, The Origin of Dark-skinned Lamanites, (naturally all ideas which are beyond reproach), it's interesting that he'd poke criticism at the scientific communities self-admitted "best guesses". I'd say this is an excellent illustration of the vanity, absurdity, and arrogance of the so-called General Authorities (authorities on everything in general... how does it go... when the leaders have spoken the thinking has been done! LOL)

> integral to its name is the word "theory" and
> every scientist knows exactly what that means...
> unproven, but consistent with the facts that we
> have at this time and subject to modification as
> soon as we have data to replace it!

No, that's not what scientists mean when they use the word 'theory. This a common misconcpetio.

What it means is a body of collective knowledge. Quantum theory, for example, provides another example of this.

quatermass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > integral to its name is the word "theory" and
> > every scientist knows exactly what that
> means...
> > unproven, but consistent with the facts that we
> > have at this time and subject to modification
> as
> > soon as we have data to replace it!
>
> No, that's not what scientists mean when they use
> the word 'theory. This a common misconcpetio.
>
> What it means is a body of collective knowledge.
> Quantum theory, for example, provides another
> example of this.

No, drjekyll is right. It is a theory. It is an attempt to provide an explanation that fits the existing data as well as possible (and provides predictions that can be checked and potentially falsified). Some theories are so strong as to be essentially beyond reproach (cell theory, for example, now that we have powerful microscopes), some are simplifications that are adequate for most uses (the theory of gravity), some are downright disputed (string theory), and some have been contradicted and discarded (the plum pudding model, aether theory).

You're right that the scientific use of "theory" is a hell of a lot stronger than general usage ("I've got a theory... the butler did it!") because to be scientific it has to be supported by the existing available data, but at it's core a theory is still conjecture, subject to change in the face of new data. Science never says "I know" with absolute certainty or it ceases to be science and becomes a form of faith. This is the exmo forums, of all the ex-somethings out there you should know that. :p

At best, science says "I'm pretty damn sure, and here is why..."

it's a good model of what we think is going on and since it is the best one we have (since the model actually predicts more phenomena that other models don't or can't) it the considered the state-of-the-art and gets talked about a lot. Just like String Theory and some other theories out there that we are just waiting for the next even more revolutionary, in-depth model to displace.

Scientists are always looking for holes in these theories so that they can be modified, improved, or simply replaced. None of them are the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and end of the story, like Mormonism claims to have regarding God and pretty much everything that exists...

All of these GA's believe and teach that there is a white stone waiting for them, and other faithful TBMs, in Heaven that'll be like a super-duper iPod/Wikipedia Universe/Planet builder's owners manual, which will be pre-loaded with all of God's laws that govern EVERYTHING and they'll be able to see well beyond the goofy models that man/scientists have come up with. It'll be their personal Urim and Thummim with access to ALL KNOWLEDGE on EVERY TOPIC. That's why it's so easy for them to be so arrogant... I imagine that in their opinion the pursuit of science, to a certain extent, is vain, whereas pursuit of religious offices and priesthood authority is not.

The byu physics dept teaches as I understand it. I wonder how he feels about that. Does he want to turn byu some fundamentalist degree mill?

In a way, I think they are having it both ways. Keeping the intelligentsia happy (in private), and keeping the masses happy (in public).

We go beyond the bloody minded here into a strange, alternative reality where the Earth is 7,000 years old, the universe is not much older, the big bang radiation out there doesn't really exist, dodos weren't really here because God was just having a laugh and put the bones in the ground like some celestial, mischievous magician, the Garden of Eden was in America, and now that we think of it, the Earth really is at the centre of the universe and is orbited by the Sun.

Believe that, said the village idiot, and you'll believe anything.

Oh and by the way, unless you give us 10% of your income you'll go to Hell. Which is deep in the Earth. Which is hollow. Like our heads.

Religion vs Science
LDS INc HATES this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Viin307tKRs

I guess my question is why do you waste your time listening to fools jabber?

Are you trying to learn something? What?

I do not understand why if you know it is all a lie that you will listen to it. It seems like a huge irritation and a waste of your time.

Not to go O/T...but while reading what you said about Russ's statement in GC, I came up with a great new way to refer to the 12, and possibly all 15... ASSpostles....I like the ring of it!

Ever since Charlie Sheen left 'Two and a Half Men', 'The Big Bang Theory' is the funniest thing on TV.

Oh, I'm supposed to READ what the actual post is about??

Sheesh....

I thought it was about the show at first too! I think that it is such a funny show!!!

The Big Bang Theory is a hillarious show. The character of Sheldon is one of the funniest written characters in television. Only Dwight Schrute from the Office compares out of any show that has come out in the last 10 years or so.

I bet serious money He can sell his wife/Mother to the cause of Gospel not hesitating a second.

I was actually very surprised Nelson bashed the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. I thought the church leaders would prefer to stay away from sounding anti-science and not looking like ignorant fundamentalists, especially now with all the public spotlight. I assumed they want to be respected in the world and sound like an educated bunch. For the most part they have historically stayed away from the creationist vs evolution debates and remained sort of in the gray area with it, allowing the individual members to interpret it themselves.

true, but Nitt needs the Santorum fundy vote, so creationism must be sold.

Yeah the Mormon church has always seemed to stay in the grey area on evolution. I remember Gordon Hinckley once saying that all a mormon had to believe on the issue was that Adam was the first man on Earth, other than that it didn't matter. This leaves a whole lot up for interpretation as you could believe in evolution and say Adam was the first "modern man" or you could be a fundamentalist and say "see our prophet backs our story."

They have stayed far, far away from a 'gray area' in past years.

I remember the Institute Old Testament class where their profound creationist stance was put into the manual in black and white.

And one can's say that Adam and Eve were our first parents and remain neutral.