AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Bebbo62

form_srcid: Bebbo62

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Bebbo62

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Bebbo62%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2012/10/04 04:54:11, Link
Author: Bebbo62
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2012,22:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:  
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg. However, according to UD the argument goes back to Michael Denton:
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Date: 2012/10/04 07:56:38, Link
Author: Bebbo62
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 04 2012,07:04)
Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Correct.  I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction':  "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

I worked on some software many years ago which had redundant code in it that was never called or was unreachable. That may be rare rather than common in software, but logically there's no reason why a designer wouldn't create something with non-functional elements.

Of course, Dembski would never commit to a particular design hypothesis because that wouldn't leave him with wiggle room later on.

Date: 2012/10/04 09:44:03, Link
Author: Bebbo62
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2012,07:45)
Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

It seems that God was tired, and wanted to take a vacation. However, being everywhere at once, it was a little difficult for him to decide on where to go. So, he called the Archangel Gabriel in on the carpet...

GOD: Gabe, I've got a problem, and I was hoping you could help me out.

GABRIEL: I'll try lord.

GOD: Well, I need a vacation, and I can't decide where I should go, and I was hoping that you could give me some suggestions.

( Gabriel thinks intently for a few seconds,...)

GABRIEL: How about Mercury? That's a nice place.

GOD: Nope, too hot. It takes all night to get over the sun-burn you got during the day.

( Gabriel thinks a little longer.....)

GABRIEL: Hmmmm,.... Well, how about Mars?

GOD: Nope, Mars is too much of a party place. All that whooping and hollering, I never get any rest when I go there.

( Gabriel is starting to get a little desperate by this time....)

GABRIEL: Well, how about Earth?

GOD: NO!! No Way!! The last time I went there, I got this little Jewish girl pregnant, and I haven't heard the end of that yet!