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

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

[pgyanke]

The plant.

I want to make sure we flesh this out fully and I don't take you out of context... you think the plant itself is created by photosynthesis?

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

Just proving you aren't paying attention. Please engage, your negativity is hurting the discussion. Your abuse of the Theory of Relativity and these "clues" are just an annoyance.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

How?

"I agree life is an open system. However, before there was life, there was entropy."

Here's a secret: There still is entropy. Open systems have it too.

"It certainly violates the 2nd Law of Thermo that complex life could come from a system evolving toward inert uniformity."

How?

"Barbra Streisand."

She's not part of the ToE either.

"Every pro-evo who denies a creator's hand has some theory they lean on to explain the origins of life."

Many physicists have an opinion on who is hotter, Alba or Jolie. That still doesn't make it part of any physics theory.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I want to make sure we flesh this out fully and I don't take you out of context... you think the plant itself is created by photosynthesis?"

I am claiming that the energy of the Sun is converted into the matter that makes up the plant. I am not saying that is the only source of the plant's matter.

"Your abuse of the Theory of Relativity and these "clues" are just an annoyance."

How did I abuse the theory of relativity? You do know that E=mc^2 means that matter and energy are interchangeable, right?

You're providing me with endless amusement though, so don't feel too bad. :)

[pgyanke]

How?

If you had just kept reading: "It certainly violates the 2nd Law of Thermo that complex life could come from a system evolving toward inert uniformity." If you don't understand what's being said, just say so.

Here's a secret: There still is entropy. Open systems have it too.

Must be the best kept secret in science! By definition, entropy is measured in a closed system. Your deficiencies are showing...

Many physicists have an opinion on who is hotter, Alba or Jolie. That still doesn't make it part of any physics theory.

I'm just about done with your nonsense. You still have not engaged the conversation on anything but a "you're wrong" level. I like this topic but I'm not going to waste my time on an intellectual black hole.

[pgyanke]

I am claiming that the energy of the Sun is converted into the matter that makes up the plant.

Now I know why we aren't getting anywhere... you truly don't understand the conversation. Photosynthesis is the process by which carbon dioxide, water and sunlight are synthesized into sugar and oxygen. Sugar is food for the plant, not the plant itself anymore than a cheeseburger is part of you.

You do know that E=mc^2 means that matter and energy are interchangeable, right?

Silly me, I thought we were talking about living matter. Care to show how E=lmc^2. It doesn't and you are throwing nonsense.

Our conversation is over. I have wasted hours with nothing of value coming back from you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It certainly violates the 2nd Law of Thermo that complex life could come from a system evolving toward inert uniformity." If you don't understand what's being said, just say so."

Where is that stated in the 2nd law? When was the earth a system evolving toward inert uniformity?

"Must be the best kept secret in science! By definition, entropy is measured in a closed system. Your deficiencies are showing..."

My God, you really don't know anything about basic physics. Entropy is always increasing, in closed and in open systems. The only known closed system is the universe itself. Every other system is open, and the Earth is most certainly an open system. That doesn't mean that the reactions taking place on Earth are exempt from the 2nd Law. They aren't. They all decrease the amount of energy available to do work in the universe. It's not a problem for life because the Sun more than compensates, on a local scale, for this entropy.

"You still have not engaged the conversation on anything but a "you're wrong" level."

That's a lie.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Photosynthesis is the process by which carbon dioxide, water and sunlight are synthesized into sugar and oxygen."

And none of this would happen in the energy of th Sun was not there and converted in part into the matter of the plant.

"Sugar is food for the plant, not the plant itself anymore than a cheeseburger is part of you."

Sugar is a part of the plant.

"Silly me, I thought we were talking about living matter."

Are you saying that E=mc^2 doesn't apply to living things? (There is no such thing as *living* matter).

"Our conversation is over. I have wasted hours with nothing of value coming back from you."

You can run away if you wish, but you have not in any way demonstrated how evolution violates the 2nd law, or that you even understand what the 2nd law states.

[King Prout]

ayyuh.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Funniest thing is that I wrote that BEFORE he claimed that entropy only happens in closed systems. Or that the sugar in a plant isn't really part of the plant, or that E=mc^2 doesn't apply to living things, and so on.

[King Prout]

...or that there can be multiple independent open systems contained as subsets within an overall closed system, etc...

[Coyoteman]

...or that there can be multiple independent open systems contained as subsets within an overall closed system, etc...

Hey, you guys actually studied science! That's no fair. /sarcasm mode

[King Prout]

reality isn't "fair" - why should those who study reality be "fair" to those who do not? *grins*

[b_sharp]

"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."

1) Abiogenesis is not evolution. If you want to argue abiogenesis then do so but please be more precise. Evolution is based on mechanisms such as selection than at this point can only be confidently applied to living organisms. It may be that at some point we can apply those mechanisms to pre/proto life but that is not the case now.

2) There is at no time a necessity for non-life to jump to life in the current theory of abiogenesis. This division is an artificial one created to explain consciousness and ultimately the human soul. In real life there is no sharp dividing line but a gradual change from basic chemical reactions to self replicators we can define as pre-life to proto life to life, taking many steps in between. We do not just assume that a murky pond had some chemicals and clay in it one day and full fledged life the next.

3) The sun is a low entropy source of energy which was created through gravity (which has a tendency to 'organize' matter). That low entropy energy is supplied to Earth which through such processes as water evaporation and condensation increases the local energy entropy which is then radiated into space. In the meantime however, that energy is put to use in the form of work. In the case of evaporation and condensation, water is elevated where it acquires energy that is used in forming clouds and is dissipated when the drops of water fall to earth in the form of high entropy heat.

This same low entropy energy is used to form chemical bonds where some of the energy is stored just as it is stored in the raindrop. This is all according to the 2LoT.

Since the formation of the first replicators was due to chemical bonds produced through available energy, that formation does not break the 2LoT in any way.

[b_sharp]

I have to leave for the moment but I'll tackle this when I get back.

[robowombat]

'Coulter's citations are generally bogus'

Can you site some chapter and verse here?

[robowombat]

Back in the 1970-71 time frame 'anti-war' (actually pro-Viet Cong) protesters who were NIH employees brandished signs with the following slogan:

"Nixon, Pull Out Now, Like Your Father Should Have Done"

The lib establishment and press types thought such a slogan to be cute and sprightly, interjecting wit into the intense anger of being 'anti-war'. Administration types were pooh poohed as being narrow fuddy duddies not to see the wit of it all.

[King Prout]

I will be glad to cite some chapter and verse, if you will be so kind as to do the following:

1. specify the number of errors you desire
2. specify the degree of refutation you believe will be required to cause you, if you find them compelling, to publicly admit that they are indeed errors
3. agree to specify in what way you find the refutations faulty if you read them and find them unconvincing.

[robowombat]

No, but deliberate disrespect for lib victim icons helps puncture the aura of untouchability these wretched people and their handlers and puppet masters want to project. Anyone that spits on a phony radiclib victim icon deserves an attaboy. It is one way of getting a shot off at the whole squalid lib victim culture racket that they use endlessly to advance their cause.

[robowombat]

Your engaging in game playing and you know it. If you have a list of glaring errors post them. You know very well what is being asked for.

[Coyoteman]

Your engaging in game playing and you know it. If you have a list of glaring errors post them. You know very well what is being asked for.

Not game playing. He wants to be sure you don't move the goalpost after he has responded.

Just state what would be convincing to you, and see if he has it. Pretty easy, no?