Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Queller]

No need to find new truth. The obvious truth is bad enough.

I would insist that commencement speakers stop telling the graduating class how wonderful they are and what great things they are going to do, and instead point out what previous classes have done with, or to, their lives. That's much more honest and revealing. This might temper the false pride and sense of entitlement these young 'skulls full of mush' have.

A commencement speaker is not "education system". Try again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You logical fallacy is: Argument from Incredulity

Yep.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A commencement speaker is not "education system". Try again.

I would have courses all through school revealing how wonderful these kids aren't, so they'll know what to expect in the real world (as revealed by annual statistical analysis of human behavior).

They would also have to remain in each academic course until they get "A"s. Failure (anything less than A's) will not be allowed.

 

[Queller]

Yep.

Do you understand why a logical fallacy is not a persuasive argument for anything?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you understand why a logical fallacy is not a persuasive argument for anything?

It persuades me.

I have no idea why this 'file' has appeared.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I were in charge I would charge the education system to teach the truth, not about evolution, but about human nature. Of course it would be difficult finding teachers, so I would probably have to do it myself.

You need to remember that just because you do not like something does not mean that it is not "the truth". If you understood even just the bare bone basics of the sciences you would see that the theory of evolution is the only explanation that is supported by reliable evidence. There is none for creationism. And since scientists know that people can be highly emotional and irrational they have developed a reasonable definition of what is and what is not evidence. One must first have a testable hypothesis. If one makes observations that support it then that is evidence for it. If one makes observations that refute it then that is evidence against the idea.

And one does not need to reproduce the event to test it. An event, such as evolution, would leave evidence that it occurred. If life was created that should leave evidence as well. The problem is that creationists appear to want to believe, they do not want to know. The idea of trying to refute their own idea goes totally against their nature. But that is what scientists do every day. They have an idea that they are so sure is correct that they put it to the test. You should be asking yourself why creationists are afraid to do that.

At any rate in case you have your sigs turned off here is a copy of a better definition than mine of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

 

[Subduction Zone]

It persuades me.

I have no idea why this 'file' has appeared.

Then you should realize that you are not thinking logically, you are thinking emotionally.

 

[Queller]

I would have courses all through school revealing how wonderful these kids aren't, so they'll know what to expect in the real world (as revealed by annual statistical analysis of human behavior).

Adn you would teach this in place of biology, why?

They would also have to remain in each academic course until they get "A"s. Failure (anything less than A's) will not be allowed.

That's just insane.

 

[Queller]

It persuades me.

That says more about you than it does about anything else. And it isn't good.

I have no idea why this 'file' has appeared.

It happens to me occasionally too. I don't know why.

However, just because I don't understand why or how it happened doesn't mean that I don't believe it happened.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Adn you would teach this in place of biology, why?

Biology would still be taught. I would even allow evolution to be taught.

That's just insane.

Why would we accept less than complete work? Their future bosses won't. If I did "B" work for my boss I would be fired. Millions are fired each year for this very reason. They don't think it's necessary to do all that they were hired to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biology would still be taught. I would even allow evolution to be taught.



Why would we accept less than complete work? Their future bosses won't. If I did "B" work for my boss I would be fired. Millions are fired each year for this very reason. They don't think it's necessary to do all that they were hired to do.

Technically a passing grade means that the requirements of the course have been met. No one is expecting less than complete work. Odds are that you do "B" work for your boss. You meet the requirements and even exceed them a bit. That is what a B is. A is greatly exceeds requirements. And C is meeting the requirements adequately. I would not accept D work, but in the real world most jobs are done to C level. You may be overestimating the level of the work that you do. Workers often do that.

 

[pitabread]

Why would we accept less than complete work? Their future bosses won't. If I did "B" work for my boss I would be fired.

Apparently you're not that familiar with the real world. There are always unexpected events, constraints, deadlines, cost/benefit trade offs that always lead to less than perfection.

That's something that I learned very quickly in my profession (finance). A lot of times people don't want to pay for an 'A'. Often a 'C' is good enough.

Granted this entirely depends on the field in question. Some fields have less slippage for errors or trade offs especially where health & safety is a concern.

 

[46AND2]

Apparently you're not that familiar with the real world. There are always unexpected events, constraints, cost/benefit trade offs that always lead to less than perfection.

That's something that I learned very quickly in my profession (finance). A lot of times people don't want to pay for an 'A'. Often a 'C' is good enough.

Granted this entirely depends on the field in question. Some fields have less slippage for errors or trade offs especially where health & safety is a concern.

Agreed. An employer of mine took to hiring inexperienced employees for entry level positions. I'm not sure how it worked out for them, though. Sure, they are saving a bunch of money on payroll, but there have been a lot more mistakes, and mistakes in my field are expensive.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Technically a passing grade means that the requirements of the course have been met. No one is expecting less than complete work. Odds are that you do "B" work for your boss. You meet the requirements and even exceed them a bit. That is what a B is. A is greatly exceeds requirements. And C is meeting the requirements adequately. I would not accept D work, but in the real world most jobs are done to C level. You may be overestimating the level of the work that you do. Workers often do that.

If what you say is true we have set the bar to promote failure, not success. And as it happens that seems to have worked out just right, as so many are failures.

I barely passed my written FAA PPL test, failing in points that made it dangerous for me to fly. That was back in the 1960's. I also think the flight training was sloppy. I'd give it a C at best. Hopefully it's better now.

I do A+ work on my job. My work credo is "Every job a masterpiece". That's why I'm overpaid.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Apparently you're not that familiar with the real world. There are always unexpected events, constraints, deadlines, cost/benefit trade offs that always lead to less than perfection.

That's something that I learned very quickly in my profession (finance). A lot of times people don't want to pay for an 'A'. Often a 'C' is good enough.

Granted this entirely depends on the field in question. Some fields have less slippage for errors or trade offs especially where health & safety is a concern.

So it is your opinion that the way things are is good enough? I always try to improve things, which often means repairing the sloppy work of others. I believe I live in more of the 'real world' than most, and it's a mess. I see it more clearly, as I don't wear those rose colored glasses.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That says more about you than it does about anything else. And it isn't good.

Isn't good for who? Is mankind poorer because I don't believe the ToE? I'm the richer as I enjoy all the benefits of science without the voodoo.

 

[pitabread]

So it is your opinion that the way things are is good enough?

I didn't say that.

My point is that there are often trade-offs in the real world, which often lead to less than perfect outcomes. In fact a lot of times the optimal outcome is not necessarily the perfect one. There are times when striving for perfection can be detrimental.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If what you say is true we have set the bar to promote failure, not success. And as it happens that seems to have worked out just right, as so many are failures.

I barely passed my written FAA PPL test, failing in points that made it dangerous for me to fly. That was back in the 1960's. I also think the flight training was sloppy. I'd give it a C at best. Hopefully it's better now.

I do A+ work on my job. My work credo is "Every job a masterpiece". That's why I'm overpaid.

That is not the case at all. What I said is simply reality. Now a person that does "A" work will be in higher demand than one that does "C" work, but both can get the job done. There are tons of C workers out there. And if you earn a higher salary than others in your field you mad do A work. The fact is that not everyone can do A work. If that were the standard we would probably suffer greatly since most people cannot do A work. That means the few that could do A work would somehow have to do the work of everyone and that is not possible. Like it or not we need C workers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't good for who? Is mankind poorer because I don't believe the ToE? I'm the richer as I enjoy all the benefits of science without the voodoo.

The problem is that you do believe in voodoo. But you are right on one thing, your personal ignorance of science is not apt to harm you. But if you push for the ignorance of science you will harm others.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Agreed. An employer of mine took to hiring inexperienced employees for entry level positions. I'm not sure how it worked out for them, though. Sure, they are saving a bunch of money on payroll, but there have been a lot more mistakes, and mistakes in my field are expensive.

My boss used to hire college kids for summer work in our apartment buildings. The biggest challenge was training them. They didn't seem to be trainable. After a few seasons we stopped hiring them. It was just too much of a struggle to get the work done. We now do the work ourselves even if we lose some rental income.