On Apr 4, 5:51 pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 4:09 pm, Andre Lieven wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:50 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 3:37 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
a second.

OTOH; What do the creationists have?

Goddidit?

They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
Speculations.
Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations." That's
putting glasses and a dress shirt on a pig. A pig is still a pig, and
a speculation is still a speculation.

No, not really. Speculations that start with a body of tested and
proven scientific evidence are better, and more useful, than
speculations based on pre civilisation fables.

The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000

Theory, noun:

Inflected forms: pl. the*o*ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or
is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.

Note that what is commonly called "string theory", or "brane theory"
or "M-theory" or "spin-foam lattice theory" or for that matter
"supersymmetry theory" in physics does NOT meet this definition. Note
also that all energies (or equivalently times) between the 1 TeV scale
and the 10^16 TeV Planck scale that has been bandied around here, are
untested experimentally, and so we have no theory by this dictionary
definition of the term in that range.

Yet, they're still built from existing physics and science. Its not as
if
their examiners are just making **** up, like some Other Folks that
can be mentioned...

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as
opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension
or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
-------
Science uses the 1st definition, and creationism uses the 6th one.
I rather disagree that the 6th definition even fits the word, other
than as a statement of common MS-use.

Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
something it does not.

Sure. But, science can be used to ask useful questions, and suggest
avenues and methods of answering those questions.

No other value system can say that truthfully. Thats a very important
distinction.

Agreed, and no argument. My focus was on what claims can be made in
the domain of the *unknown*, which is where a good chunk of the action
surrounding the big bang squarely sits.

Sure. One method is to plug in the newer data into models that include
the
known, and then see what questions the new data helps explain.

Andre

On Apr 4, 6:50 pm, "assmonkey" 72-retards@hummers.&nut weaseled:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message

...
| On Apr 4, 4:50 pm, PD wrote:
| On Apr 4, 3:37 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
|
| On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD
|
| wrote:
| That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
| create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
| physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
| physics we know.
|
| But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
| of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
| a second.
|
| OTOH; What do the creationists have?
|
| Goddidit?
|
| They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
| Speculations.
| Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
| speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations." That's
| putting glasses and a dress shirt on a pig. A pig is still a pig, and
| a speculation is still a speculation.
|
| No, not really. Speculations that start with a body of tested and
| proven scientific evidence are better, and more useful, than
| speculations based on pre civilisation fables.
|
| The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
| Edition. 2000
|
| Theory, noun:
|
| Inflected forms: pl. the*o*ries
| 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
| facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested
| or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about
| natural phenomena.
| 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
| statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as
| opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
| 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
| mathematics.
| 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
| rather than theory.
| 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension
| or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
| return to the scene of the crime.
| 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
| conjecture.
| -------
| Science uses the 1st definition, and creationism uses the 6th one.
| I rather disagree that the 6th definition even fits the word, other
| than as a statement of common MS-use.
|
| Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
| egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
| good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
| something it does not.
|
| Sure. But, science can be used to ask useful questions, and suggest
| avenues and methods of answering those questions.
|
| No other value system can say that truthfully. Thats a very important
| distinction.
|
| Andre

Why did you cut this out:

I didn't, so, once again, you tell LIES for your sky pixie...

Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
something it does not.

shrug Scientists with the credentials to speak on the matter do
consider evolution to be a settled issue as to did it happen.

There is no " controversy "...

And why did you not address it?

Because it was stupid, ignorant, and dishonest.

Congratulations: You win the trifecta of imbecility.

Andre

"Dubh Ghall" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT), PD
| wrote:
|
| On Apr 4, 2:56 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
| On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD
|
|
|
| wrote:
| On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
| wrote:
| "adman" wrote
toalt.atheism on 04
| Apr 2008:
|
| We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
| cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out
of
| nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).
|
| Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.
|
| Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
| them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
| singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
| that point.
|
| We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.
|
| As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
| because physics, as we understand it fails there.
|
| In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
| format, it is -
| 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.
|
| I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
| beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
| actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
| know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
| where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
| 10 times lower energy (and longer in time) than what you've written.
| In fact, we do not have even the slightest idea what happened before
| the inflationary epoch at around 10^-35 seconds, and as I just said,
| we don't really know much at all about the laws of physics other than
| unsupported guesses (supersymmetry et al) before 10^-27 s. That is
| sixteen orders of magnitude different than where you are claiming we
| know the laws of physics. In case you are unaware of what that looks
| like in arithmetic format, that is 10000000000000000.
|
| Note that NONE of that information tells you ANYTHING about any
| explanation for the big bang other than what was in effect some time
| AFTER the big bang, let alone how or why it was done, which is
| precisely what you find lacking in the bronze age myth. In fact, the
| information provided tells you precisely that you do not know any
| natural explanation of anything prior to 10^-27 s.
|
| The fact remains that we are talking about the unknown. Not having a
| natural explanation for the events prior to 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive
| that there was a supernatural creator instead. On the other hand, not
| having evidence of a supernatural creator for the events prior to
| 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive that there is a natural accounting (which
| we do not have) either. The point being: I don't see why you think
| there needs to be persuasion one way or the other about the realm of
| the unknown. It seems to me to be a spectacularly ill-advised mandate
| to decide to be persuaded either way about the unknown. "Well, if I'm
| not persuaded of THIS about the unknown, then I guess I must be
| persuaded of THAT about the unknown instead." Why on earth would you
| do that, other than just being in the mood for a fight and having to
| pick a side?
|
| That has to be the longest straw man, that I have ever read.

And obviously the longest you do not understand.

|
|
|
| Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
| that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
| with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
| to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
| was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?
|
| ...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.
|
|
| ...And you didn't answer the question.

"RedDog" wrote in message
...
| On Apr 4, 7:08 pm, "adman" wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message
|
|
...
| On Apr 4, 4:26 pm, "adman" wrote:
|
|
|
| It seems you made the effort to not pick a side at all. To answer your
| question, mankind has a deep desire the know the unknown.
|
| Which includes a compulsion to guess. I agree. There's not a thing
| wrong with that, and indeed guessing is a crucial element of science.
| The main thing to remember is when it is a guess and when it becomes
| more than a guess. This is not as easy as it sounds.
|
| Having a deep desire to know the unknown does not grant license to
| make stuff up and call it known.
|
| However, and this is another area of contention, I also hold that
| there are more ways to know something than by the scientific method.
| There are many who say hogwash, or if they acknowledge that it is so
| then it is an inferior kind of knowledge. Personally, I do not agree.
| However, this does not give license to say that a guess is known just
| because it is very strongly desired that it be so.
|
| With 1/2 of
| mankind taking a scientific approach, and the other 1/2 taking a
spiritual
| approach. Nothing wrong with that I guess. So it comes down to a
choice.
| Which do you choose to believe based upon all information giving at
hand?
|
| There are many things about which I deliberately do NOT make the
| choice. Demanding that a choice be made about the unknown is what I
| regard to be both unnecessary and counterproductive.
|
| Tell that to about 50 billion people that will disagree.
|
|
|
| You seem to actually know what you are talking about as compared to
some
| of
| the others that post here and postulate themselves as scientists.
|
| Giving the information at hand; and assuming you wanted to "pick a
side"
| and
| was "in the mood for a fight";
|
| I don't. Why is that necessary?
|
| I see you do not want to choose. Which os ok. That is a "safe" position
to
| take.
|
| which seems more plausible for creation? A
| creator that put into motion all the known laws? Or the "Big Bang"
theory
| that begun the Universe and it's following evolution?
|
| Here's the thing about plausibility. As a physicist, I can tell you
| that most of the things that go on in the universe are highly
| implausible by our intuitive reckoning. Parallel lines intersect,
| particles behave as though they are in two places at once, matter
| disappears and reappears, objects go through barriers without
| puncturing them, duration between two events changes depending on how
| fast you move past them, etc. But these highly implausible things are
| also *measured* to really occur. Physicists do not build theories
| based on plausibiity. They often build theories based on quite
| implausible presumptions and see what plays out from those
| presumptions, and then tests those predictions against experiment. If
| the experiments match, then the presumptions have support NO MATTER
| HOW IMPLAUSIBLE they are.
|
| Intuition is often confused with logic. People call things that clash
| with their intuition and everyday experience "illogical", but there's
| nothing illogical about counterintuitive. Intuition and common sense
| are notorious liars and blind fools.
|
| Forgive me for being presumptuous. But you sound as if you made a great
case
| "for a creator" but a creator with a sense of humor that makes
"particles
| behave as though they are in two places at once, matter disappears and
| reappears, objects go through barriers without puncturing them, duration
| between two events changes depending on how fast you move past them".
The
| bible is clear when is says they will seek and seek, yet never find
answers
|
| But should we give up? No. The bible is also clear when it says that
"all
| those that truly seek ME will find me"
|
|
|
| Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
| that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age
myths,
| with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
| to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that
there
| was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?
|
| ...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.
|
| Now, notice that after all that, you still don't know whether I am a
| believer or not.
|
| Well, i really could care less(no to be rude at all).
|
| However, I do know truth when I read it and there is truth in your
| words.Which is the sole reason why I asked if you were to choose a side,
| which side would you choose; Because I believe whatever side you choose
| would probably be closer to what is the real truth.
|
| How dare i presume that? Well, You do not seem to be corrupted by a
hatred
| for God, or a suspicion of Science. Nor do you present answeres like
some of
| these so called "real" arm chair scientists on usenet.
|
| A breath of fresh air, to say the least.
|
| PD
|
| Says the proven ****-eater. LMAO! :-)
|
| Proof of faggot adman's **** fetish:
|
|
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...a940e1f74d1343

is not me. You are a proven lier.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:11:02 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 8:57 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:27 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote
toalt.atheismon 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out
of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

There is no credence to be measured between science and religion in
the domain of the UNKNOWN.

Science can make inroads into exploring the unknown.

Religion would hold us back every time.


Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

Once again, you are arguing about the value of extrapolating (and
thereby mentally computing a probability/possibility) laws from INSIDE
their domain of applicability to OUTSIDE their domain of
applicability. And you are asserting, incorrectly, that this is the
more "scientific" approach to treating the unknown than the religious
approach to treating the unknown. I dispute that, and I believe a very
large number of working physicists would dispute that. At least,
that's how I was trained as a working physicist.

Hohohoho! You, a working physicist? Pull the other one, its got bells
on.


When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

Read my lips. These are what-if scenarios for which there is NO
experimental evidence whatsoever.

Experimental, at the moment no. But most what-ifs start out with some
data that needs to be explained.

There is no accuracy of explanation
to be judged. There are no known facts fit. There is NO match to data
of any kind from string theory or brane theory or spin-foam lattice
theory, yet there are hundreds of very competent physicists who are
spending their careers on it.

You do talk some rubbish.

--
Bob.

On Apr 5, 9:21*am, Ye Old One wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:11:02 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:





"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 8:57 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:27 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote
toalt.atheismon04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out
of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

There is no credence to be measured between science and religion in
the domain of the UNKNOWN.

Science can make inroads into exploring the unknown.

Religion would hold us back every time.





Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

Once again, you are arguing about the value of extrapolating (and
thereby mentally computing a probability/possibility) laws from INSIDE
their domain of applicability to OUTSIDE their domain of
applicability. And you are asserting, incorrectly, that this is the
more "scientific" approach to treating the unknown than the religious
approach to treating the unknown. I dispute that, and I believe a very
large number of working physicists would dispute that. At least,
that's how I was trained as a working physicist.

Hohohoho! You, a working physicist? Pull the other one, its got bells
on.





When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

Read my lips. These are what-if scenarios for which there is NO
experimental evidence whatsoever.

Experimental, at the moment no. But most what-ifs start out with some
data that needs to be explained.

There is no accuracy of explanation
to be judged. There are no known facts fit. There is NO match to data
of any kind from string theory or brane theory or spin-foam lattice
theory, yet there are hundreds of very competent physicists who are
spending their careers on it.

You do talk some rubbish.

--
Bob.


The attributions got mangled. The statements you are arguing with are
mine. I'm a physicist. Tell me again what your questions or disputes
are.

PD

Albert Einstein "found God".
When he was asked if he did believe in God,
he said yes, he believes in SPINOZA'S GOD!
He wrote:
"Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann,
mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann."
(How much do I love that noble man,
more than I could say with words.)

Now, if you are really interested, Google up
SPINOZA'S GOD. You may be surprised,
and perhaps awakened. -- L.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:20:16 -0600, Libertarius
wrote:

Albert Einstein "found God".
When he was asked if he did believe in God,
he said yes, he believes in SPINOZA'S GOD!
He wrote:
"Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann,
mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann."
(How much do I love that noble man,
more than I could say with words.)

Do you have an actual scholarly cite for this?

Now, if you are really interested, Google up
SPINOZA'S GOD. You may be surprised,
and perhaps awakened. -- L.

Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:20:16 -0600, Libertarius
wrote:


Albert Einstein "found God".
When he was asked if he did believe in God,
he said yes, he believes in SPINOZA'S GOD!
He wrote:
"Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann,
mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann."
(How much do I love that noble man,
more than I could say with words.)


Do you have an actual scholarly cite for this?

===Certainly:
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions
of human beings.”

Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert
Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921,
published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life
and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p.
413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein
Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable
Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.

-- L.





Now, if you are really interested, Google up
SPINOZA'S GOD. You may be surprised,
and perhaps awakened. -- L.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:06:48 -0600, Libertarius
wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:20:16 -0600, Libertarius
wrote:


Albert Einstein "found God".
When he was asked if he did believe in God,
he said yes, he believes in SPINOZA'S GOD!
He wrote:
"Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann,
mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann."
(How much do I love that noble man,
more than I could say with words.)


Do you have an actual scholarly cite for this?

===Certainly:
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions
of human beings.�

Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert
Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921,
published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life
and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p.
413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein
Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable
Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.

Thanks.
I recall an oft quoted passage that was attributed to Albert, and
reproduced in journals and books, that upon forensis, turned out to
have been false, but copied and quoted as thought it were real, based
on it's pedigree.
I cannot recall which one it was though.

Why would it be both a quote from a Rabbi in 1921, AND a telegram in
1929?
Sounds a bit fishy to me.