And what would you have assumed?
I would have assumed that he did accept evolution. But I prefer not to assume, particularly when it is something at the heart of our discussion and when it is so easily checked. But yeah, your response of flying off the handle, saying I had problems and saying it was a stupid question was a perfectly understandable response...
From the beginning it has been about how information came about.
Actually, that part of the discussion was about why I suspect you have discounted evolution without understanding it.
Not at all, but being rude, arrogant and acting like I was the one who didn't know what I was talking was not the way to discuss anything.
I answered the question I saw you ask to the best of my ability. You disagreed with me at every turn, and yet your disagreements were just statements, you never provided any reasoning as to why you discounted them. Shall we review that thread of our conversation?
Tinker Grey had said that he didn't feel that the evidence for God was coinvincing. Post 666.
You cited the information in cells, asking if he didn't find that convincing evidence of intelligence behind it. Post 670.
Tinker responded, but it was at this point I commented, saying that I didn't find it evidence because there are many flaws in the way cells and organisms work that speaks more of evolution than purposeful design. Post 675.
You specified that you were talking about the information IN cells not the cells themselves as I was talking about. Post 689.
I said that my point remains the same, for the same logic applies to both. Post 753.
You asked how the information in cells came about. Post 758.
I said evolution. Post 770.
You asked me more specifically how the information came about. Post 777.
I asked you to define information (because it would be best if we were both on the same page as to what information is, right?). Post 785
You specified you meant, "instructions, blue print, purpose, goals which we call genetic information." Post 796.
I repeated my answer that evolution could be responsible for the development of that kind of genetic blueprint. Post 799
You pointed out that I had already said evolution, but that, "you still have not said how that occurred." Post 804.
I interpreted your statement as meaning that I had not said how evolution occurred, since the word "that" was vague and appeared to be an antecedent referring to the word "evolution" you'd mentioned in the first sentence of the post I was replying to. So I gave you a link to a site explaining how evolution worked. Post 825.
You said that site didn't answer your question, because you were talking about how information came about and the website I linked to didn't answer that. Post 828.
I said that evolution is the process by which new information can come about (referring to things like mutations, gene duplication, etc, although I didn't specifically mention those things in this post). Post 844.
You then specified that you were asking how the information came about in the first place, allowing for evolution to occur. Post 845.
I figured you were talking about the building blocks of organic molecules, since they are the basis of things that evolve and are responsible for the translation of DNA into the proteins that cells use, so I provided a link explaining how that occured. Post 847.
You said you didn't mean amino acids, you meant, "the biological information from which the materials of DNA instruct and specify towards function and form." Post 852.
Since that information is stored as specific sequences of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine in the DNA strand, I asked if this is what you meant. Post 874.
You said, "No," and nothing else. Post 875.
So, since I had tried to figure out what you meant by "information," but you said you WEREN'T talking about how evolution produced new information, you WEREN'T talking about how amino acids changed the DNA strand into proteins and you WEREN'T talking about the way DNA stores information as specific sequences of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, I had no idea what you were talking about. As far as I knew, my responses described exactly how genetic information works, and yet you weren't satisfied with any of my answers. I provided links to sites to give more information, yet each and every time you just claimed that's not what you were talking about, yet you didn't really do anything to make what you WERE talking about any clearer. And you were always vague and ill-defined about what you meant by "information." The one time you did try to specify what you meant, you included the ideas of "Goal" and "Purpose," despite the fact that any scientist in a field relevant to biology or evolution will tell you that there is no overall goal or purpose to the existence of any information in life forms (apart from "reproduce"). Post 876.
You then quite rudely said that maybe I was the one who didn't know what she was talking about, despite the fact that I answered your questions to the best of my ability and the entire problem was caused by your inability to define information in a way that was relevant to the topic of evolution. Post 877.
I pointed out that even if I didn't know what I was talking about, it still wouldn't have prevented you from providing a coherent definition of "information" in the context of our discussion. Post 882.
You then defined information as, "the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects." Post 896.
Apparently you missed the bit where I mentioned that specific sequences of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine in the DNA strand do exactly this and you said it wasn't what you were after. I pointed this out and explained how evolution is responsible for that particular order. Post 911.
You again said that this wasn't what you were after, claiming that specific sequences of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine themselves are not information. You also said, "...that evolution could not occur without a way to reproduce and something to select from. The information has to be present in the system prior to evolutionary process to work." Post 912.
At this point I decided to assume that you were asking how the information was created in the first place to allow for reproduction and evolution. I cut and pasted from one of my other posts in a different thread about how enzymes could conceivably make more of themselves. Post 914.
You then said that this was not a valid answer, yet in your response you criticized the Urey-Miller experiment (which I agree has flaws but works fine as a proof of concept of how amino acids can arise quite easily). post 964.
I pointed out that not once did you address my hypothetical enzyme explanation. Post 966.
You said that my enzyme explanation doesn't explain how the enzyme got the information in the first place. (BTW, enzymes work because of the way the order of proteins in them causes the molecule to form to a particular shape - and this is getting back to another explanation that I discounted and which you rejected). Post 976.
At this point I was about to give up, since you appeared to be rejecting my answers to you without appearing to understand WHY I was providing them as explanations for what you were asking. Post 1027.
You said that I couldn't answer your question because I didn't know the subject. You also claimed that you had a very good education on the subject. You also accused me of mistaking my arrogance for intelligence. Post 1044.
I asked what qualifications you had (since you claimed to have received a very good education on the subject). Post 1046.
You refused to answer the question and decided instead to just insult me for a bit, accusing me of parroting information I don't understand. You also said I don't understand the material and that you explained why my answers were incorrect (which you didn't). You then patronizingly said, "Which is fine, not everyone is well versed in every subject that is discussed." Post 1053.
I pointed out that you had not answered the question of what qualifications you had. Post 1088.
You once again refused to answer the question and demanded that I provide my qualifications. Post 1099.
I freely admitted that I have no qualifications, but I get my information from the people who actually DO have qualifications. Post 1103.
You AGAIN refused to tell me what qualifications you have and instead asked why I thought you had discounted evolution. Post 1105.
I said that you appeared to be stalling in an attempt to avoid answering the question. I also explained why I think you discount evolution, saying it was because you don't understand it. I then pointed out a few instances of where you demonstrated that lack of understanding. I also asked you again to provide your qualifications. Post 1108.
You finally got around to answering my question, although you spent a full paragraph on how long you had been on this forum (which as far as I know, does not count as any kind of qualification at all). In this paragraph you complained that unbelievers often think that believers don't understand evolution because they discount it. You also accused me of believing myself superior to you and being disrespectful and arrogant. When you finally got around to providing your qualifications, you admitted you don't actually have any at all, but your husband has a Master's in biology and you have spent a lot of time researching it (even though you never explained what that research involved, it could have been reading articles on Answers in Genesis for all the information you gave me). You also said that my conclusion that you discount evolution because you don't understand it was totally false. You said that evolution could not have occurred until the information was there. You also said that you believed that evolution was being guided towards some end goal. Post 1118.
I asked if your husband accepted evolution. I also explained that when I said I believed you discounted evolution due to not understanding it, it was just me stating my opinion. I also asked why, if evolution was being guided towards some end goal, the entity doing the guiding didn't just start with that end goal? Post 1121.
You flew off the handle in response to me asking what your husband thought of evolution, claiming that I had problems. You also said that it was not true that my belief that you discounted evolution due to a lack of understanding was just my belief. To support this claim of yours, you cited my statement that it was a fact that evolution is responsible for information in cells. You didn't seem to understand that my opinion that you don't understand evolution is my opinion based on your rejection of facts. You also were under the impression that me misunderstanding your question should have resulted in me being confused about it and could not have resulted in me thinking you were asking something else (which just isn't true). You also claimed that I had presented the hypothetical enzyme idea as an absolute fact, and then insulted me some more by calling me uneducated, rude, arrogant and believed myself to be superior to Christians. You also didn't seem to understand why I would ask why any entity using evolution to get to an end goal would not just simply start with the end goal. Post 1124.
I asked why you over-reacted to my question about your husband's position on evolution. I explained to you some more about my belief that you discounted evolution due to not understanding it and how that was my opinion, and that I was not presenting it as a fact. I also explained how me misunderstanding your question would not have prevented me from answering the question I thought you were asking, and then I explained that I presented the enzyme thing as a hypothetical example of what might have happened, not as a fact. I also said that it was actually presented by a biologist who knows what he is talking about, and it wasn't just something made up by me. I finished off by explaining why it makes little sense to bother with a long development if you can just start with the final product. Post 1129.
You said me asking your husband's view of evolution was a stupid question. You accused me of misrepresenting our conversation. You then said I couldn't have misunderstood your question because I seemed certain what you were asking, despite the fact that certainty can be mistaken. You also repeated your claim that I presented the enzyme idea as a fact, and said that the evidence presented showed there were problems with it. Then you claimed that evolution is just man's description of what God is doing. Post 1131.
I explained why I asked about your husband's views on evolution. I further explained why I provided answers despite apparently not understanding what you were asking. I provided the actual text from my enzyme idea to show you that I never once claimed that it was a fact. I also pointed out that you never provided anything about the enzyme idea. The closest you got was your criticism about the Urey Miller experiment which dealt with amino acids. I then pointed out that you claiming that evolution is man's description of what God is doing doesn't explain why God wouldn't have just started with the end product. Post 1138.
That's a brief summary of our conversation. You have repeatedly been rude to me. You've called me arrogant and accused me several times of believing myself to be superior to believers. And you accused me of asking stupid questions and reacted with hostility. All I've done is point out where I've thought you were mistaken, I've tried to answer your questions to the best of my ability even when you are vague about what you are asking and your statements don't fit with the currently accepted views on how evolution works (it's not guided, for example). And yet you accuse me of being the rude one?
You said: I think you've discounted evolution because you don't understand it. You claim it doesn't explain the fact that cells contain information, despite the fact that it does. If you understood evolution you'd understand that fact. And you said the how evolution occurred was not explained, at least, not by me. See post 804.
Or are you suggesting that you are a person who accepts that evolution can take place, but you don't understand that it is the answer to the question you were asking?
Now who is lying?
Once again, me talking about the fact that evolution explains information in cells does NOT mean I think it's a fact that you have discounted evolution. I NEVER said that it was a fact that you discounted evolution, I only ever said that I strongly suspect it. You are just latching onto any time I used the word "fact" and are making it about yourself.
The scientist you said presented it?
Since I never said who presented it, nor where it was presented to me, I don't see how you could know that readint that presentation would illustrate the problems with it. Besides, where I read it, it was being described as a hypothetical explanation, not a factual account (something which I have explained to you several times already).
You seem incapable of following our conversation, and you also don't seem to know that the little blue arrows next to a person's name in the quoted text will take you to the post being quoted, and you can follow the conversation back. Please feel free to refresh yourself with the summary of our conversation which I provided above.
The question was, "If evolution is being guided towards some pre-specified end result, why bother with all the evolution in the first place? Why not just start with the end result to begin with?"
