Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[BCP1928]

It was "badly flawed" on purpose.

"Flawed" in favor of evolution, so as to give evolution a very large benefit of a doubt.

And evolution was still pwned mathematically.

I thought you meant Dembski's mathematical critique. And no, evolution is on solid ground mathematically.

 

[Ophiolite]

White elephant - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Because the animals were considered sacre₩₩¥d and laws protected them from labor, receiving a gift of a white elephant from a monarch was simultaneously a blessing and a curse"

I thought it might describe your "gift" in a similar kind of a way...

Yes, I see your point. I had overlooked the orginal meaning of white elephant. It has morphed, in my experience, into a sense of a "worthless object that gets, somewhat, in the way". It was that reading that obscured for me, your intent.

I think, taking the curse angle, that echoes my argument that some may view personal responsibility as a curse.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you meant Dembski's mathematical critique.

I'm not familiar with Dembski, so I Googled him.

It says he's a proponent of Intelligent Design, so I'm not too crazy about him.

HOWEVER, since he uses mathematics, which I assume in academic circles is by far head-and-shoulders above biological evolution, I'll assume he's right.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not familiar with Dembski, so I Googled him.

It says he's a proponent of Intelligent Design, so I'm not too crazy about him.

HOWEVER, since he uses mathematics, which I assume in academic circles is by far head-and-shoulders above biological evolution, I'll assume he's right.

Two assumptions, both wrong. Mathematics is an analytical tool used by scientists. Dembski's mathematics had mistakes in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Two assumptions, both wrong.

Eh?

Mathematics is an analytical tool used by scientists.

So I notice:

Dembski's mathematics had mistakes in it.

As I said, the "mistakes" were on purpose.

Had he not made them, he would have reduced evolution down to a "theory in crisis."

Oh ... wait ...