The meat mixer illustration has numerous faults. First, chances are good that you would bust the dryer long before anything could come together.
Second, if the parts are too big, they would not fit. If the dryer is too small, pieces trying to come together would be stopped from doing so by the drum itself getting in the way.
Additionally, this proves nothing. Given a strong enough tumbler that is big enough, and forever, at one point there has to be a complete and working meat mixer. The odds are extremely long against it at any given time, but you are dealing with infinity here. And, if you are dealing with infinity, every possible combination that is mathematically possible has to happen at some point.
The bread pan is a crock. Suppose I bake a loaf in a bad bread pan. Now, that loaf is going to be bad--and so will every single loaf out of that pan. But, will you get additional defects? No. You do not make a new bread pan out of the bad loaf--You do not get multiple generations of loaves. And, suppose I were to fix the dent in the bad pan, perhaps by reheating the pan and repressing the dent out of it. Now, the surface is like new, and any loaves are going to come out perfect. Why Jehovah couldn't have come up with that idea?
And, suppose that the student is actually better than the teacher? This is in fact very possible. Most schools these days have a strict teaching method that relies on disjointed factoids and ineffective means to teach. The teacher has to know very little, since everything the teacher teaches the class is already written down in the agenda. I could teach you Shakespeare by this method, even though I know very little about it, since everything the teacher does is what the Establishment tells them to do. A student, on the other hand, could start fooling around with phonics and the core rules, put the pieces together, and find that it all fits in perfectly. That student, from now on, is going to be better than the teacher in that subject. And, it can happen without warning--I had it happen to me with my times tables when it took me ten seconds to master the rules of multiplication and division. After that, I never had a comprehension error in multiplication or division again.
I almost never used the stock illustrations, even in my talks. Invariably, I could make up my own--and they would be better than what the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger ever came up with. I always thought that "Use of illustration" meant you were expected to make up good, applicable illustrations that would fit the subject, not using the stock ones I was supplied with. Ultimately, that became another area where I was better than the "teacher(??)" in because the "teacher" only did what he was told to. Once I got beyond that in illustrations, the "teacher(??)" could no longer "teach(??)" me anything about those stock illustrations.
