Wendelin's Theory No. 2835: No matter what group you belong to, there will be some faction of that group that will give the rest of you a bad name.
I thought, I really really thought, there was no way this could happen in The Group Of People Who Think Creationism Is WACKO And Will Say So Loudly But Not Violently Or Anything. Well ha, ha. You may all point and laugh at my naivete.
Here's what happened. A guy called Kent "I Am Ze Nutcase" Hovind has issued a challenge on his website for years now: he says he'll pay $250,000 to anybody who can prove the theory of evolution*. (Of course, the challenge is asterisked; the fine print says that the acceptable level of proof is recreating the Big Bang in a lab. But let that be for now.) "I AM ZE NUTCASE!" Hovind cried. "Nobody can extract my quarter mil. from me!"
But his glee was to be shortlived... or was it? Wikipedia's entry on Hovind talked about some dude called Adam Kisby having met Hovind's challenge with a mathematical proof. I looked it up. With high hopes. I sorta deserved what was coming, no?
Okay, I've linked to the pdf file of the proof, but I gotta run (furniture shopping, whee!). Here's the challenge to you guys: figure out that's wrong with the guy's proof, all right? I did, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist or nothin'.
Bah. Humbug.
* Kent Hovind's own site seems to be down so I linked to an article detailing the challenge (and showing how bogus it is).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fixin' to move
Bored and restless am I. It's time to move on from this "wendelin" business. I'm fixing up a new place to get properly res...
-
As I type up last Friday's blog inviting questions for the weekly "Ask Me Anything Day", Saurabh looks over my shoulder. Click...
-
Yes, there have been no updates lately, but that is because - well - With a view towards relaxation and general surfing, I trolled LJ for fu...
-
. I have yet again managed to rip my schedule to shreds and shamelessly shy away from work. I need to do something about it... and what bet...
Weird .. Totally!
ReplyDeleteBut the glaring error was he proves that U=Null set in the first proof.. But then if you sub nullset in the #2, it becomes Null set => God. Which cannot be assumed..
Damn humbugs
krish
Delete the previous answer..
ReplyDeleteIn First Hypothesis
Point#5 is flawed. He *assumes* that G and U are disjointed sets which is a wrong assumption in the first place..
Correct me if I am wrong..
Hey.. the above anonymous comment was from me
ReplyDeleteSorry.. I was in a hurry