From the context it would seem that the dust that God created man from was, indeed, the dust of the ground from the earth that God had previously made, namely the ground from which plants and trees come (vs. 6&9).

I am not at all certain (and in fact I am convinced that it is often quite the opposite) that one must reconcile what God's Word says with man's theories about the origin of the universe. That is, even if some reconciliation can be made, does not imply that reconciliation must be made. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is without a personal, creator God, he has, in the Bible's estimation made himself a fool (see Psalm 14:1).

In this case one is not obligated to listen to a fool or follow in his ways. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is by the direct, creative act of God, he has come closer to the truth but is still in no position to claim that man was made from stardust since he cannot know that with absolute certainty.

For remember that scientific research and conclusions are not infallible but mostly present a scholar's opinion or generally received opinion about something without being certain that it is true. Sometimes assumptions are made, for example, that similarity proves a common ancestor but this begs the question. It may be a helpful or useful explanation, but this does not make it true.

So may I ask: is there anything similar about stardust and 'earth' dust that may lead one to prefer the one over the other without knowing that for certain? Furthermore, what scientific evidence does he provide? Does it truly contradict the scripture's claim that we are made from the dust of the earth, or is another explanation possible?