Ben Stein Stumps Richard Dawkins.

Ah yes. The typical response from the board moron.

I was just noting your typical cut and paste "quotes" as pointless and irrelevant.




That was followed by your typical, stuttering and mumbling attempt at insult because your fundie cranks are exposed as frauds.


The Panda's Thumb: Search Results



Remember that Berlinski is on the record as “I have never expressed support for theories (sic) of Intelligent Design…”. or the following excerpt in which he distances himself from Intelligent Design?


Berlinski Wrote:
“If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon’s mouth and say so. I do not and I did not.” For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin’s theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa.



It's actually laughable when you fundie cranks trot out Berlinski in failed attempts to support supernaturalism.


What a shame that Berlinski has a record of dismissing ID'iosy when he later associates himself with the charlatans at the Disco'tute.


It's probably a lack of options. Berlinski is such a hack, he can't find work doing real science so he's left to front for Christian fundies.






I thought "pointless and irrelevant" was your nickname.


You never deal with the substance.....why is that?





The typical evasion and sidestepping from the "quote-mine" fraud.




The substance addressed was with reference to Berlinski. He has no credibility as an honest agent of science and learning so he ditched his earlier rejection of ID'iosy and jumped into bed with the Disco'tute. The 'tute has become a laughing stock of ID addled charlatans and frauds.
 
David Berlinski, King Of Poseurs

Recursivity: Search results for Berlinski

David Berlinski is yet another of those academic nonentities that the Intelligent Design crowd has elevated to the status of expert, despite having a minuscule scientific publication record and not a single significant contribution to science or mathematics. Berlinski is fond of writing, mostly negatively, about the theory of evolution, despite understanding virtually nothing about the subject, and somehow manages to get his essays published in famous scientific venues, such as Commentary.

Berlinski is sometimes described as a mathematician, although his Ph. D. is apparently in philosophy, not mathematics. MathSciNet, the online version of Mathematical Reviews, a journal that attempts to review nearly every mathematical publication, lists exactly 8 items authored or edited by Berlinski. Two are books for a popular audience: (Newton's Gift and The Advent of the Algorithm). Of the remaining 6 items, 3 are contributions published in Synthese, a philosophical journal, for which Berlinski served as editor and wrote brief introductions and the other 3 are largely philosophical papers, published in Synthese, the Biomathematics series, and Logique et Analyse. Two of the last three didn't even merit a genuine review in Mathematical Reviews.




Yep. Berlinski carries on those attributes of creationist hacks with dubious credentials who are self-claimed experts in fields of study they have no training in.
 
Last edited:
recall that the innocent you are referring to is the guy you're blaming for the act.....
I'm not sure if I follow you.

why not?.....are you unfamiliar with the doctrines of Christianity?.....you were criticizing God for punishing an innocent in the place of the guilty.....this overlooks the fact that the innocent he was punishing was his incarnate self......

would you likewise describe everyone who sacrifices himself to save someone else, for example a fireman who dies trying to rescue a child from a burning building, as morally bankrupt and Satanic?......

Pointless.

Comparing objective reality (acts of firemen in your story), to unsupportable claims that appeal to supernaturalism (invented configurations of gods), is utterly ridiculous.
 
I was just noting your typical cut and paste "quotes" as pointless and irrelevant.




That was followed by your typical, stuttering and mumbling attempt at insult because your fundie cranks are exposed as frauds.


The Panda's Thumb: Search Results






Berlinski Wrote:
“If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon’s mouth and say so. I do not and I did not.” For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin’s theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa.



It's actually laughable when you fundie cranks trot out Berlinski in failed attempts to support supernaturalism.


What a shame that Berlinski has a record of dismissing ID'iosy when he later associates himself with the charlatans at the Disco'tute.


It's probably a lack of options. Berlinski is such a hack, he can't find work doing real science so he's left to front for Christian fundies.






I thought "pointless and irrelevant" was your nickname.


You never deal with the substance.....why is that?





The typical evasion and sidestepping from the "quote-mine" fraud.




The substance addressed was with reference to Berlinski. He has no credibility as an honest agent of science and learning so he ditched his earlier rejection of ID'iosy and jumped into bed with the Disco'tute. The 'tute has become a laughing stock of ID addled charlatans and frauds.





You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?
 
I thought "pointless and irrelevant" was your nickname.


You never deal with the substance.....why is that?





The typical evasion and sidestepping from the "quote-mine" fraud.




The substance addressed was with reference to Berlinski. He has no credibility as an honest agent of science and learning so he ditched his earlier rejection of ID'iosy and jumped into bed with the Disco'tute. The 'tute has become a laughing stock of ID addled charlatans and frauds.





You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

True if you remove all mathematics.
Why would one do that?
You have been sucked in to a very silly statement.
 
The typical evasion and sidestepping from the "quote-mine" fraud.




The substance addressed was with reference to Berlinski. He has no credibility as an honest agent of science and learning so he ditched his earlier rejection of ID'iosy and jumped into bed with the Disco'tute. The 'tute has become a laughing stock of ID addled charlatans and frauds.





You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

True if you remove all mathematics.
Why would one do that?
You have been sucked in to a very silly statement.






Because mathematics as a cover for conjecture, sans experimentation, is simply magical incantations.


But....folks who don't realize it will believe anything.
 
I thought "pointless and irrelevant" was your nickname.


You never deal with the substance.....why is that?





The typical evasion and sidestepping from the "quote-mine" fraud.




The substance addressed was with reference to Berlinski. He has no credibility as an honest agent of science and learning so he ditched his earlier rejection of ID'iosy and jumped into bed with the Disco'tute. The 'tute has become a laughing stock of ID addled charlatans and frauds.





You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

1. That was quite a sidestep.



2. You hoped a handy "quote" from a creationist charlatan would make some imagined case for one or more gods.



3. Neither the fraud Berlinski nor the frauds at the Disco'tute have any plausible explanation for the existence of the universe.



4. You're a demonstrated fraud with your phony "quotes".



We know that to be true.
 
You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

True if you remove all mathematics.
Why would one do that?
You have been sucked in to a very silly statement.






Because mathematics as a cover for conjecture, sans experimentation, is simply magical incantations.


But....folks who don't realize it will believe anything.

Yet, it was you who trotted out Berlinski as a "mathematician" with one of your typically ill-prepared and poorly researched cut and paste "quotes".

You were just lazy and never took the time to discover he is not a mathematician, or someone who has a body of published work. He's just a shill for creationist dregs.
 
Everything that have a beginning must have a cause.

Which would include the gods. Creationists demand an exception for their gods because without ".... but.... but. .... but..... my gods require a special exception, because I say so", the entire model collapses.

Science is the search for natural explanations of our natural universe. The supernatural is not within its realm. And speaking of realms, Current religionists do not need to create them, because that had been done so a long time before the currently configured gods. The assertion of the gods' supernatural realm to explain a natural realm simply begs the question that if anyone needs realms to explain realms, then why do religionists not postulate a super-supernatural realm to explain the supernatural one? Why only a hierarchy of 2, when one suffices and two leads to infinity?
 
You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

True if you remove all mathematics.
Why would one do that?
You have been sucked in to a very silly statement.






Because mathematics as a cover for conjecture, sans experimentation, is simply magical incantations.


But....folks who don't realize it will believe anything.

Math is magical incantation, huh.
Ok.
 
The typical evasion and sidestepping from the "quote-mine" fraud.




The substance addressed was with reference to Berlinski. He has no credibility as an honest agent of science and learning so he ditched his earlier rejection of ID'iosy and jumped into bed with the Disco'tute. The 'tute has become a laughing stock of ID addled charlatans and frauds.





You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

1. That was quite a sidestep.



2. You hoped a handy "quote" from a creationist charlatan would make some imagined case for one or more gods.



3. Neither the fraud Berlinski nor the frauds at the Disco'tute have any plausible explanation for the existence of the universe.



4. You're a demonstrated fraud with your phony "quotes".



We know that to be true.





Now, now.....don't run and hide.

The question is simple enough....even for a simpleton like you.


Tell ya' what.....I've give you a third strike:

Want to try again?



"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


Since mathematician Berlinski seems to confuse you....let's pretend your inspiration is the one who said it, Bozo the Clown.


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?
 
True if you remove all mathematics.
Why would one do that?
You have been sucked in to a very silly statement.






Because mathematics as a cover for conjecture, sans experimentation, is simply magical incantations.


But....folks who don't realize it will believe anything.

Yet, it was you who trotted out Berlinski as a "mathematician" with one of your typically ill-prepared and poorly researched cut and paste "quotes".

You were just lazy and never took the time to discover he is not a mathematician, or someone who has a body of published work. He's just a shill for creationist dregs.




"One, Two, Three: Absolutely Elementary Mathematics"
(Vintage) Paperback

by David Berlinski (Author)

The acclaimed author of A Tour of the Calculus and The Infinite Ascent offers an enlightening and enthralling tour of the basics of mathematics, and reveals a world of fascination in fundamental mathematical ideas."
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/One-Two-Three-Absolutely-Mathematics/dp/1400079101]One, Two, Three: Absolutely Elementary Mathematics (Vintage): David Berlinski: 9781400079100: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]



Now would you answer the question?
 
True if you remove all mathematics.
Why would one do that?
You have been sucked in to a very silly statement.






Because mathematics as a cover for conjecture, sans experimentation, is simply magical incantations.


But....folks who don't realize it will believe anything.

Math is magical incantation, huh.
Ok.



Now, pay close attention, because these are very important points:



1. In pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality.



2. You're a fool.
 
You did such a terrible job, simply changing the subject.

Want to try again?

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

1. That was quite a sidestep.



2. You hoped a handy "quote" from a creationist charlatan would make some imagined case for one or more gods.



3. Neither the fraud Berlinski nor the frauds at the Disco'tute have any plausible explanation for the existence of the universe.



4. You're a demonstrated fraud with your phony "quotes".



We know that to be true.





Now, now.....don't run and hide.

The question is simple enough....even for a simpleton like you.


Tell ya' what.....I've give you a third strike:

Want to try again?



"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


Since mathematician Berlinski seems to confuse you....let's pretend your inspiration is the one who said it, Bozo the Clown.


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

Berlinski is not a mathematician. That seems to confuse you as you continue to trot him out as one.



How is it that you're still befuddled by this?




Are you hoping that bolded text will somehow add drama to your silly posts?








You're not understanding and you don't understand, that you don't understand.




True or not true?
 
Because mathematics as a cover for conjecture, sans experimentation, is simply magical incantations.


But....folks who don't realize it will believe anything.

Math is magical incantation, huh.
Ok.



Now, pay close attention, because these are very important points:



1. In pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality.



2. You're a fool.

I'm terribly sorry you have no understanding of how math really works.
 
Math is magical incantation, huh.
Ok.



Now, pay close attention, because these are very important points:



1. In pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality.



2. You're a fool.

I'm terribly sorry you have no understanding of how math really works.





And terribly sorry you should be.

Bet you're even more broken up about your SAT score having less than four digits.
 
Now, pay close attention, because these are very important points:



1. In pure mathematics we can create any reality by starting with seemingly arbitrary assumptions. The mathematician gets to define terms, and proceed to theorems, lemmas, or corollaries....and that will remain mathematical reality.

a. That's different from physics, for example, where a result believed to be true can always be replaced later if experimentation that better reflects reality.



2. You're a fool.

I'm terribly sorry you have no understanding of how math really works.





And terribly sorry you should be.

Bet you're even more broken up about your SAT score having less than four digits.

The childish insults aren't argument.
 
1. That was quite a sidestep.



2. You hoped a handy "quote" from a creationist charlatan would make some imagined case for one or more gods.



3. Neither the fraud Berlinski nor the frauds at the Disco'tute have any plausible explanation for the existence of the universe.



4. You're a demonstrated fraud with your phony "quotes".



We know that to be true.





Now, now.....don't run and hide.

The question is simple enough....even for a simpleton like you.


Tell ya' what.....I've give you a third strike:

Want to try again?



"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski


Since mathematician Berlinski seems to confuse you....let's pretend your inspiration is the one who said it, Bozo the Clown.


The subject is the creation of the universe.

Science has no answer....once "the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject,...'


True or not true?

Berlinski is not a mathematician. That seems to confuse you as you continue to trot him out as one.



How is it that you're still befuddled by this?




Are you hoping that bolded text will somehow add drama to your silly posts?








You're not understanding and you don't understand, that you don't understand.




True or not true?




Sorry....three strikes and you're out.

First, Berlinski is a mathematician.

mathematician (ˌmæθəməˈtɪʃən; ˌmæθmə-)
n
1. (Mathematics) an expert or specialist in mathematics
mathematician - definition of mathematician by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



2. Secondly, science has no explanation for the creation of the universe.
This is the answer to the question that you ran away from three times.

Now, the reason you ran from it is that you are a hate-blinded bigot, a virulent foe of religion.

Aside from the New Atheist's there are many scientists who see religion fit into their beliefs.
In fact, most scientists believe in God, or some definition of the Divine.

"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project


Your greatest fear is that admitting that science cannot answer the question that I asked might leave room for a belief in God.


I don't know why you fear that so, but you do.




3. I had a great deal of fun making you look like Swiss Cheese.
 

Forum List

Back
Top