The Science Fraud

[Redfish]

I’m not talking about the slave holders. I’m talking about the slaves. All black. Now I’d we had slaves of the white race we could all pretend that American slavery wasn’t racist. But it was.

Not all slavery is racist. American slavery was.

bullshit, you know nothing about history, typical FOS libtardian.

 

[Mushroom]

you said that in your post #210. you are arguing with yourself.

And you are still presenting absolutely no evidence, only stating your personal belief and nothing else.

 

[BackAgain]

Which is not refuting what I said.

Why is it that the silly children instead of trying to actually engage in a meaningful dialogue always simply result to insults and name calling?

By the way, here are some references. Which clearly talk about slaves of other races in the Colonies and early US.

White slavery in the United States

Caption title. Also available in digital form on the Library of Congress Web site.

www.loc.gov

‘Freedom Dues’ explores White slavery in Colonial America

San Diego-based author Indra Zuno spent seven years researching and writing her first book, ‘Freedom Dues’

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Now I simply sit back and wait for you to provide nothing to back up your claims and simply throw around more insults yet again.

Irrelevant you moron gasbag.

Show me a white American slave in America and I’d be pleased to reconsider. Until then, you’re a worthless hump. Well, even before then.

 

[BackAgain]

bullshit, you know nothing about history, typical FOS libtardian.

Clearly, I know tons more than you do.

Show me one white American slave from our pre-Civil War days.

That’s right. You can’t. Because American slavery was race based. Which is all I’ve been saying.

By the way, how does recognizing reality make me a lib? One can note the historical record, that American slavery was racist, without condemning all of America.

 

[Redfish]

And you are still presenting absolutely no evidence, only stating your personal belief and nothing else.

apparently its your belief too, you said that other cultures practiced slavery long before the USA. Slavery is wrong no matter who does it, but to claim that in only happened in the USA is just plain stupid.

 

[Redfish]

Clearly, I know tons more than you do.

Show me one white American slave from our pre-Civil War days.

That’s right. You can’t. Because American slavery was race based. Which is all I’ve been saying.

By the way, how does recognizing reality make me a lib? One can note the historical record, that American slavery was racist, without condemning all of America.

show me one ex-slave or ex-slave owner in the USA today and I will support giving the slave reparations paid by the slave owner.

 

[BackAgain]

show me one ex-slave or ex-slave owner in the USA today and I will support giving the slave reparations paid by the slave owner.

We weren’t discussing reparations. And I oppose any call for reparations, anyway.

Unbeknownst to you, we actually agree for the most part.

Also, like many people, my forebears came to this great land AFTER slavery was already eradicated here. Why would any of their descendants be required to pay for any actions of other people at all, much less to the descendants of slaves. These descendants weren’t slaves. Neither were their parents. Neither were their grandparents.

I don’t owe anybody a damn penny for the misery inflicted on their great grandparents.

 

[Mushroom]

apparently its your belief too, you said that other cultures practiced slavery long before the USA. Slavery is wrong no matter who does it, but to claim that in only happened in the USA is just plain stupid.

I never said it was right, and never said it only happened in America. I have absolutely no idea what you are even saying at this point, you seem to just enjoy being disagreeable.

 

[Mushroom]

That’s right. You can’t. Because American slavery was race based.

Then explain the large numbers of Irish that were shipped off to the US.

Oh, nominally they were "indentured servants", but they were still property, to be bought and sold, used and abused at will. The only problem was that they tended to die, fairly few of them would live to be manumitted. Most only survived about 2 years In the colonies, which was causing the price to rise so they were no longer economically viable. fact, it was the high death rate that caused the importers of cheap labor to turn to Africa for the source of labor.

And the Indians and Spanish did the exact same thing, enslaving any that were not "theirs".

The problem here is that you are using modern concepts of "race", and not what was applicable in the 17th century. Where the Irish were not considered "white", and were another race. In fact, are you even aware that the earliest prohibitions of emigration to the US were against the Irish? To the majority in the US, the Irish were "not white". Sounds silly today, but when discussing the 18th and 19th century you have to see and discuss it through the eyes of the time and not revise it to a modern concept. Because that will always be a failure.

In fact, the rejection of the "non-white Irish" is a major reason why there are so many of Irish descent in Mexico even to this day. They were not welcome in the US so continued on to Mexico.

 

[BackAgain]

Then explain the large numbers of Irish that were shipped off to the US.

You’re so full of shit, your eyes are brown.

Historical fact: no Irishman was ever held in slavery in this republic. Period.

Oh, nominally they were "indentured servants", but they were still property,

False. Indentured servants weren’t slaves.

The balance of your overly verbose post is just more of your specialty: bloviating bullshit.

 

[Mushroom]

False. Indentured servants weren’t slaves.

What do you call it when you were taken against your will, considered property, bought, sold, or used however your owner wanted, and were far more likely to die in captivity than ever see your freedom?

 

[BackAgain]

What do you call it when you were taken against your will, considered property, bought, sold, or used however your owner wanted, and were far more likely to die in captivity than ever see your freedom?

In one case it’s slavery.

In another case it might be indentured servitude.

If you imagine you’re making a “point,” then you’re engaged in fantasy.

Slavery is still not the same thing as indentured servitude.

 

[Redfish]

I never said it was right, and never said it only happened in America. I have absolutely no idea what you are even saying at this point, you seem to just enjoy being disagreeable.

you and others on the left always blame the USA for slavery as if we were the first to engage in it. We were not the first, but we were one of the first to ban it and outlaw it. Why do you libs hate america so much? Why do you constantly lie about this country?

I am not disagreeable I am merely observant and educated. I post facts and truth. Why does the left shun facts and truth?

 

[Mushroom]

you and others on the left always blame the USA for slavery as if we were the first to engage in it.

Once again, you are simply projecting and making things up. Find where I ever said anything even remotely like you are accusing me of.

This I find particularly funny as I believe absolutely nothing of the sort. I am also not on "the left".

Hell, I wish most of you politically based morons would make up your freaking minds. I have had somebody call me a far-left Communist, and yet another call me a goose stepping Nazi on the exact same page. All that tells me is that you are so politically biased that you just assume that anybody that does not agree with your nonsense is obviously a political enemy and the opposite of what you believe in.

The very fact that you are having to make up things I never said and push them on me is absolute proof of that. If you are going to make things up and put things into my mouth that I never said, that is simply lying.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The 150-year-old science fraud of evolution:
Weasel program - Wikipedia



In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem:

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and not be familiar with returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. (Novel Length: How Long is Long Enough?)

The average word has 6.47 letters. (Capitalize My Title)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10 to the -3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”



Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the -50 or less.

https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 78 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.

Therefore 10 to the 50 marbles, each 1cm in diameter, would occupy 78 spheres reaching from the center of the sun to Pluto, 5.906 billion kilometers from the sun. (10 to the 5 marbles/km)3 = 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic km

To get 35 more orders of magnitude requires roughly 4.64 x 10 to the 11 cubed

4.64x 10to the 11 km/5.906 x 10to the 9= ~78.5 spheres the size of our solar system to Pluto]



Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins':

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.



By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.




[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.

Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humans *a, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138 *b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acids *c and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bonds *d reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! – John Phillip Jaeger]

a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

b - The Size of the Human Proteome: The Width and Depth

c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

 

[Manonthestreet]

Clearly, I know tons more than you do.

Show me one white American slave from our pre-Civil War days.

That’s right. You can’t. Because American slavery was race based. Which is all I’ve been saying.

By the way, how does recognizing reality make me a lib? One can note the historical record, that American slavery was racist, without condemning all of America.

 

[BackAgain]

Nonsense. Those were British days not American pre civil war days.

There were tons of white slaves held by the Barbary pirates, too. But of course, they also don’t qualify.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Manonthestreet]

Nonsense. Those were British days not American pre civil war days.

There were tons of white slaves held by the Barbary pirates, too. But of course, they also don’t qualify.

A lib who doesnt trust NPR...come on man

 

[BackAgain]

A lib who doesnt trust NPR...come on man

Who do you imagine is a lib?