Ann Coulter: America's fiery, blond commentatrix [MARK STEYN on ANN COULTER!]

www.macleans.ca ^ | June 21, 2006 | Mark Steyn

[Coyoteman]

Your argument against evolution based on the origins of life are false.

As pointed out in the following post, what are the implications of each of these possible origins with regard to the theory of evolution, that is, the change since origin?

From a post by Dimensio:

I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

From a post by Dimensio here.

In each case, evolution could proceed just fine. Your argument in the previous post is thus false.

[pgyanke]

Your argument is reduced to THIS? I'm starting to wonder why I'm still on this thread...

BTW, I haven't been arguing about the change since origin... I'm talking about the origin itself. These hypotheses are silly.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

It takes a lot of faith to believe this came about by its own fiat.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

So where did they come from? There has to be a beginning somewhere. Oh yeah... BANG!

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

Sorry. This displays a surface-only thinking process. Before man can get far enough to seed his own race, he had to have his own origins. It's a nice sci-fi canard, though.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

Did I happen to mention that this divine agent nurtured a family of people, to a race of people, to a nation of people, to the world to reveal Himself? Historians record how He rescued His chosen people from bondage in Egypt and then chastised them repeatedly for their unfaithfulness. Centuries before He Himself came into the world, He told us what would be and it was all fulfilled to the letter. The people of his day were convinced by the miracles He performed to prove His identity. Just because you don't know Him doesn't mean He didn't do all He said He did.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

Right. Like the one in the link above that scientists would have us believe.

Your argument in the previous post is thus false.

It must be so if you say so!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I could sum up your post as "cause I said so". I'm convinced."

You could sum it up that way, but you would have to lie to do so. You have not in any way demonstrated how anything in evolution violates the 2nd law, nor that you even know what the 2nd law is.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He fails to show how solar radiation has been shown to change nonorganic material to organic to living organisms... reason: it doesn't and has never been shown to do this."

Here's a hint for you:

[pgyanke]

Oh, that's rich. Why don't you tell me how photosynthesis fits into this... hint for you: chicken and egg.

[pgyanke]

You could sum it up that way, but you would have to lie to do so.

I'm getting very close the ending our conversation. I don't take well to being called a liar. Back it up, if you can.

You have not in any way demonstrated how anything in evolution violates the 2nd law, nor that you even know what the 2nd law is.

Frankly, neither have you. Time for you to do some heavy lifting. I've told you where I stand, you tell me where I'm wrong instead of just telling me I am.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Oh, that's rich. Why don't you tell me how photosynthesis fits into this.."

It's an example of how solar radiation has been shown to change non-organic material to organic to living organisms.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm getting very close the ending our conversation. I don't take well to being called a liar."

I didn't say you were a liar, yet. I said that you would have to be a liar if you summed up my post as "cause I said so". You only said that you COULD sum it up that way. When or if you actually take that plunge, you will be lying.

"Frankly, neither have you."

The burden of proof is with you. You say that the 2nd law goes against evolution, but you won't back it up by saying how. Your claim shows you don't even understand what the 2nd law states.

"I've told you where I stand, you tell me where I'm wrong instead of just telling me I am."

You tell us where evolution goes against the 2nd law, and then maybe it will be possible to get into more detail. Your just saying it does doesn't mean squat.

[King Prout]

"a self-described engineer not understanding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
PLACEMARKER

[pgyanke]

Chicken and egg. Photosynthesis is a process where an organic body creates a sugar using sunlight. If the organic body doesn't already exist to create it, where did the sugar come from?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Chicken and egg. Photosynthesis is a process where an organic body creates a sugar using sunlight. If the organic body doesn't already exist to create it, where did the sugar come from?"

You said that "he fails to show how solar radiation has been shown to change nonorganic material to organic to living organisms... reason: it doesn't and has never been shown to do this." I showed an example of that happening. The light energy is converted to an organism.

It's dishonest to change the goalposts in mid debate.

[pgyanke]

You say that the 2nd law goes against evolution, but you won't back it up by saying how.

You're just not paying attention. Read what I wrote above about entropy (more than once), tell me where I'm wrong and we'll continue. So far, you've added nothing of substance to this discussion and I'm not going to continue feeding your impulse to tell me I'm wrong. Show your understanding of the Law and how I'm wrong... surely you know how wrong I am, right? You keep saying so...

[King Prout]

It's dishonest to change the goalposts in mid debate.

exactly. thus my constant requirement for agreeing to concrete requirements and standards before engaging in debate. thank you for giving him an opportunity to demonstrate precisely the behavior I was attempting to pre-empt.

[pgyanke]

The light energy is converted to an organism.

REALLY? Please tell the class what organism is created. Then we'll go on to how this all applies to a system with no living material to start with...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Read what I wrote above about entropy (more than once), tell me where I'm wrong and we'll continue."

When you explain how evolution violates the 2nd law i'll take notice. Here's a hint: the origin of life is not part of the ToE (though the origin of life doesn't violate the 2nd law either.)

"Show your understanding of the Law and how I'm wrong... surely you know how wrong I am, right?"


When you show yours first (you were asked first.) Please just state what YOU think the 2nd law says.
All

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It's amazing how dense some anti-evos can be.

[pgyanke]

You think I'm dense, you should see the people who can't read and think I'm anti-evo...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"REALLY?"

Yes really. Here's a clue:

E=mc^2

"Please tell the class what organism is created."

The plant. You DO know that organisms are not static things, right? That the molecules they start with are constantly being reshuffled and replaced with new molecules? You for instance are not made of the same molecules you were 10 years ago, even if you look superficially the same.

"Then we'll go on to how this all applies to a system with no living material to start with..."

What would that have to do with either evolution or the 2nd law?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You think I'm dense."

Yes.

[pgyanke]

When you explain how evolution violates the 2nd law i'll take notice.

From post #291: Actually it does. The argument against says that life isn't governed by this law. How about the creation of life? I'm not arguing about the process of evolution, as I pointed out above. I am arguing about its beginning. Where does life begin? For the strict evolutionist, there comes a point where one moment there wasn't life and the next there is... THIS violates the 2nd Law of Thermo. I agree life is an open system. However, before there was life, there was entropy. It certainly violates the 2nd Law of Thermo that complex life could come from a system evolving toward inert uniformity.

Here's a hint: the origin of life is not part of the ToE

Barbra Streisand. Every pro-evo who denies a creator's hand has some theory they lean on to explain the origins of life. It is these I am attacking. As I said at the start of this conversation, that God chose to use evolution or simply selective adaptation doesn't bother my faith a bit. However, if a pro-evo doesn't believe in God, God's creation violates their very core and they will find something, anything else to believe (like the nonsense I linked a couple of times to this thread).