SeaBreeze when I wrote "Now that is the point, isn't it?"I wasn't referring to what is your point, but rather to what my point was and to also two I considered to be the point of "a physics professor from California State University at Long Beach". In the post where referred to that professor you made no comment asking where information comes from nor did you discuss the topic about it. In the post where you mentioned "Professor Richard Lewontin" the only thing you wrote about "where information comes from" was part of one sentence. I no no interest in talking about, but did have an interest in talking about your comments regarding Einstein and Newton, so that was what i did.
When was at at the break room computer this morning at work I noticed that your post which mentioned Lewontin had a video embedded in it (or a link to a video) about an enigma about where information comes from. I did not see that at home because of my old computer system with a very slow internet connection. I this did know until my break at work that was a subject which you considered to be your point.
I have not yet watched the video (I can only watch away from home) and i might not ever watch, since that topic is of very little interest to me. I don't ask myself where does information comes from. I don't even have a clear idea of what you mean by "where information comes from?", since your question since it is very broad. In order for me to have a good idea you need to define what you mean by "information", in the sense which you are using the word. If you mean specific kinds of information, you to state what those kinds are.
If you asked specifically where does the information in DNA comes from, I would understand that question. But that subject also is very little interest to me. However I would say that it involved natural selection acting upon mutations in prior DNA which produced benefits to the organisms contained the revised DNA. If the question is about where (or how) DNA first came to contain information, the I would say it was by natural selection acting on prior DNA in such a way which enabled the revised DNA to have better survival rates (than the earlier DNA) and/or better replication rates. But I have no interest in determining a more detail answer to the question. I don't have a number of interests that primarily creationist apologists (such as yourself) have.
Furthermore, I have no interest in playing a game of Whac-A-Mole, figuratively speaking. If I were to answer one of your creationist type questions, then you would ask another, and if I answered it, then you would ask still another, and on and on and on, etc. I don't want to use a considerable amount of my time in such, since I am much more interested in other things. Furthermore, I know I can't change your views about creationism and thus I no interest in doing so. But I do have some interest in preventing other people from adopting some of your creationist views. I also have an interest in helping people to abandon some creationist views which you also have. As a result sometimes I will comment on what you say about creationism. A similar situation applies to some other things you (and others) say on this website.
I spent 40 minutes of my precious free time to think up and type this post and I don't want to devote more to the matter, thus I have now finished making this post.
