L
Lost_Found
Guest
Okay I have a legitimate question about Darwinism, so there are probably experts on this forum who can settle my misgivings about it all.
For many years I’ve been a computer programmer of custom accounting systems, so I ask accounting questions about evolution.
Years ago, I recall landing a job where I took over the existing custom accounting system and it didn’t balance by seven dollars, in a system tracking three billion tax dollars. My first task was to proof the numbers, that is, find and fix the program code so the numbers reconcile to zero difference.
The existing computer coding turned out to be a dog’s breakfast, because my predecessor used to patch away at the bugs, fixing enough of his mistakes until they cancelled themselves out reasonably close to zero. Eventually I decided to throw out the entire model and re-build the logic/code from scratch because it couldn’t handle any new scenario without excessive retrofitting.
So when I say “proof”, I mean reconcile to the dollar, because seven dollars out of three billion was hiding some serious problems with system design. The key is, as you reconcile, you find all the mistakes.
So- I might accept that peoples’ appearances will change from one generation to the next, and scientists will argue that this accumulates over time. But when someone asserts that life here is 3 billion years old, and in this time evolved 10 billion human brain cells working in harmony with billions of other cells in the heart, liver, limbs, can you see how as a programmer-accountant I would need to see this broken down and reconciled.
So an accountant would say, to be evaluated to the same standard as me, scientists will provide ‘proof’ once they break down their MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION RATES by the year, over each of the alleged THREE BILLION YEARS and show the ZERO to TEN BILLION brain cell transformation, year-over-year. (Just be thankful I didn’t request by the “transaction”/generation). I suspect that they’re quite a ways from accomplishing this, so I’m suspicious that they’re patching and blind-eying some massive design problems behind the scenes of their model. I could only predict their theory would eventually need to be thrown out and rebuilt from scratch because they have far too much remaining to be reconciled. I am suspicious that there are messes the outsider does not see in their model, if there is a model.
In my dollar accounting world, you will be dismissed after not being able to reconcile 10 billion dollars, let alone fudging seven dollars, on a budget of 3 billion. This is the standard I am held to, and evaluated on. My impression is that scientists are being extremely forgiving of their own standards, more like relying on faith in their claims. Could someone please comment and clarify in a language I can understand.
For many years I’ve been a computer programmer of custom accounting systems, so I ask accounting questions about evolution.
Years ago, I recall landing a job where I took over the existing custom accounting system and it didn’t balance by seven dollars, in a system tracking three billion tax dollars. My first task was to proof the numbers, that is, find and fix the program code so the numbers reconcile to zero difference.
The existing computer coding turned out to be a dog’s breakfast, because my predecessor used to patch away at the bugs, fixing enough of his mistakes until they cancelled themselves out reasonably close to zero. Eventually I decided to throw out the entire model and re-build the logic/code from scratch because it couldn’t handle any new scenario without excessive retrofitting.
So when I say “proof”, I mean reconcile to the dollar, because seven dollars out of three billion was hiding some serious problems with system design. The key is, as you reconcile, you find all the mistakes.
So- I might accept that peoples’ appearances will change from one generation to the next, and scientists will argue that this accumulates over time. But when someone asserts that life here is 3 billion years old, and in this time evolved 10 billion human brain cells working in harmony with billions of other cells in the heart, liver, limbs, can you see how as a programmer-accountant I would need to see this broken down and reconciled.
So an accountant would say, to be evaluated to the same standard as me, scientists will provide ‘proof’ once they break down their MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION RATES by the year, over each of the alleged THREE BILLION YEARS and show the ZERO to TEN BILLION brain cell transformation, year-over-year. (Just be thankful I didn’t request by the “transaction”/generation). I suspect that they’re quite a ways from accomplishing this, so I’m suspicious that they’re patching and blind-eying some massive design problems behind the scenes of their model. I could only predict their theory would eventually need to be thrown out and rebuilt from scratch because they have far too much remaining to be reconciled. I am suspicious that there are messes the outsider does not see in their model, if there is a model.
In my dollar accounting world, you will be dismissed after not being able to reconcile 10 billion dollars, let alone fudging seven dollars, on a budget of 3 billion. This is the standard I am held to, and evaluated on. My impression is that scientists are being extremely forgiving of their own standards, more like relying on faith in their claims. Could someone please comment and clarify in a language I can understand.
The 
So few words say so much! Only from an accountant 
Shhh pretend we don’t know what they’re up to, just remind them we’re waiting for the bottom line 