The Science Fraud

[braalian]

View attachment 825352

Indentured servitude is on huge fucking rung about actual slavery

 

[Redfish]

Indentured servitude is on huge fucking rung about actual slavery

only because it has a theoretical end date. otherwise it is slavery.

 

[Stryder50]

Darwin and science didn't invent racism. The US had slavery long before his theory.

The whole world, via human history from the start of culture and later civilization had slavery.
The USA had no monopoly, and inherited slavery from the English and French colonial efforts pre-dating 1775.
For that matter, the "New World" (Western Hemisphere) aside from the Native American custom of taking and keeping slaves, got it's European version from the Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch before the French and English joined in.

BTW, early slavery in the New World wasn't solely a racial thing. Indentured servitude as a punishment for crime saw many "criminals" of assorted races and ethnics serve as slaves to fulfill their sentences.

Too bad USA education has been so remiss on this subject, among many others.

 

[Mushroom]

Those were British days not American pre civil war days.

And what exactly is the difference?

Other than you are cherry picking a very select period of under 100 years in a very select area. And completely ignoring over 500 years involving multiple nations and cultures.

This is a great example of trying to drive a narrative by very selectively trying to dictate the narration you want to allow. And that is always a failure. Especially to those that actually know history.

 

[Mushroom]

Who do you imagine is a lib?

To be completely honest, you come across like several others I have seen over the decades.

A far-left radical, that tries to present themselves as what they think people on the right wing are. You, your claims, and your nonsense are pretty much a caricature.

To be honest, I have thought you were one for ages. Because that is exactly how you come off.

 

[Mushroom]

only because it has a theoretical end date. otherwise it is slavery.

And that was very heavy in the "theoretical". It was actually very common for them to be sold as they grew near the end of their term of service, and suddenly find it extended for another 7 years. Or to have their owner charge things to them like food and housing and demand that be paid off before they could be freed, essentially permanent debt-bondage.

There are also cases of those getting their freedom, then being grabbed up and accused of being runaways, and being slapped right back into bondage.

It was very theoretical, and in fact less than 10% actually earned their freedom. Nine out of ten indentured servants died in captivity.

 

[Mushroom]

BTW, early slavery in the New World wasn't solely a racial thing. Indentured servitude as a punishment for crime saw many "criminals" of assorted races and ethnics serve as slaves to fulfill their sentences.

Like the Irish.

Huge numbers would be swept up in the slums of London, especially children. They were unwanted there, and they were shipped off by the thousands in order to rid England of their presence.

And they were equally unwanted in the Americas. People do not seem to understand the the "Irish Papists" were not seen as "white" in the eyes of the British. They were vermin to be eliminated, not much different from the NSDAP view of Slavs, Jews, and Romani centuries later. Most would not survive more than 2 years in their indenture, and 9 in 10 would die before being given their freedom.

People also tend to forget that there were two main classifications of "Indentured Servants". The highest were those that wanted to emigrate to the colonies, but could not afford it. These would indenture themselves in order to pay for passage. However, the main difference here was that these had a marketable skill that was needed and worth money. Smiths, coopers, carpenters, skilled farmers, skills like that. They would indenture themselves, and on the docks of England there were brokers that acted as middle-men in order to get them the best deal they could from their indenture. Often times even including land so they could set up their own home and business.

And they were even allowed and expected to own their own property. If somebody in the Americas wanted to indenture one of these, they were expected to arrive with their own tools. And those were their own tools and were not the property of whoever indentured them. And as many of this class were literate, they ensured that their indenture papers would include things like their tools and the promises arranged at the end of their term of service. After all, what use is a Journeyman Smith without the tools of his trade? And of what use would he be after his term of service without those tools?

Essentially these were journeymen craftsmen that were serving out this stage to gain experience and money so they could become masters in their own trade.

This is far removed from those swept up in the slums of London and other major cities. Along with the criminals, and those who had fallen into debt and were sold to pay off that debt. Those had little to no skills, and were treated just as slaves were.

 

[BackAgain]

And what exactly is the difference?

I am afraid that you are beyond the scope of any remedial education.

Go play in speeding traffic, now, kid.

 

[BackAgain]

To be completely honest, you come across like several others I have seen over the decades.

A far-left radical, that tries to present themselves as what they think people on the right wing are. You, your claims, and your nonsense are pretty much a caricature.

You are beyond retarded. Just because you’re an old line retard doesn’t mean that your idiotic views have any merit.

I laugh whenever one of you skells claim that I am a liberal.

Fuck off, child.

 

[Mushroom]

Indentured servitude is on huge fucking rung about actual slavery

Your father was a merchant that fell into debt, and to pay off that debt you are rounded up, put into a debtor's prison, then sold off and sent to the Americas.

Where you are expected to work 16 hour days in the rice fields of South Carolina. Whipped if you do not work hard enough, locked up in a cell when not working. Not even being allowed to get married. Able to be bought or sold at the will of your new owner.

At the end of your "service" (if you survive), you might likely find yourself being charged for the food you ate and the room you slept in, then sold off to a new owner two hundred miles away and have to repeat it allover again. Rinse and repeat.

So tell me, exactly how is it "different"?

Oh, and if you are a woman it was worse. You could be ordered to keep his bed warm at night, and if you had a child that child would also be property. For as is the status of the mother is also the status of the child.

 

[Mushroom]

Fuck off, child.

Wow, I have to admit I find your ability to actually have an intelligent and intellectual conversation amazing.

You seem to have absolutely no ability whatsoever when it comes to actually trying to rebut anything said that you do not like, you simply attack over and over again and hurl insults. Then try to say the other is a child.

It is so pathetically predictable, it is no wonder I see you as just a fake.

And yes, I am positive you are a liberal. Trying to pretend to be a caricature of what you think a "conservative" is. Because I have never met an actual "conservative" that is as retarded as you seem to be. But that's OK, I have seen the exact same thing in idiot conservatives that try to pass themselves off a "far-left" caricatures.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow, I have to

I believe I told you to fuck off.

Do so.

You’re a waste of oxygen and electrons.

 

[Hollie]

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

Just more of your spam with reams of cutting and pasting from ID’iot creationer ministries.

 

[Redfish]

And that was very heavy in the "theoretical". It was actually very common for them to be sold as they grew near the end of their term of service, and suddenly find it extended for another 7 years. Or to have their owner charge things to them like food and housing and demand that be paid off before they could be freed, essentially permanent debt-bondage.

There are also cases of those getting their freedom, then being grabbed up and accused of being runaways, and being slapped right back into bondage.

It was very theoretical, and in fact less than 10% actually earned their freedom. Nine out of ten indentured servants died in captivity.

we are in agreement, why do you want to argue?

 

[surada]

Then you think wrong.

The lifespan of a white indentured slave was six years.

 

[surada]

Just more of your spam with reams of cutting and pasting from ID’iot creationer ministries.

They're definitely idiotic. Every culture has a creation myth and they are all very different from each other.

 

[surada]

Your father was a merchant that fell into debt, and to pay off that debt you are rounded up, put into a debtor's prison, then sold off and sent to the Americas.

Where you are expected to work 16 hour days in the rice fields of South Carolina. Whipped if you do not work hard enough, locked up in a cell when not working. Not even being allowed to get married. Able to be bought or sold at the will of your new owner.

At the end of your "service" (if you survive), you might likely find yourself being charged for the food you ate and the room you slept in, then sold off to a new owner two hundred miles away and have to repeat it allover again. Rinse and repeat.

So tell me, exactly how is it "different"?

Oh, and if you are a woman it was worse. You could be ordered to keep his bed warm at night, and if you had a child that child would also be property. For as is the status of the mother is also the status of the child.

Survival was 3 to 11 years.

.

 

[Redfish]

Survival was 3 to 11 years.

.

Ok, we understand that, but the issue is whether the USA was the first place to make blacks slaves, and it was NOT.

 

[Mushroom]

The lifespan of a white indentured slave was six years.

Which is only true because of those skilled craftsmen. Most of who did complete their term.

But for the field hands it was a very different tale. And that is what most of them were brought over for.

 

[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

johnjaeger

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM​

Hi John—

Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!


Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.


Best regards,

Doug Axe


Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University