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

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

[robowombat]

If footnote can be shown to be not supporting what the text says that is pretty straight forward. Impugning sources of quotes does get into a grayer area.

[King Prout]

I know very well that I am being asked to allow my opponent to play a game wherein he can move the goalposts at whim.

I'm not going to play that particular game.

I'm far too thoroughly enjoying boxing my opponents into playing MY game.

[robowombat]

Look, if an author misstates or distorts materiel from footnote citation it can be clearly shown. If Coulter does that it should be exposed. Arguments over the authors arguments pro and con are another matter. But faking or garbling quotes or misstating through selective quotation is another matter. If you have evidence of these sorts of authorial sins they should be highlighted.

[b_sharp]

"I read your source. He glosses over my argument by asserting that the Earth was receiving solar radiation and was therefore not a closed system. 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. Yes, the 2nd Law argument fails mathematically because of the addition of sunlight... but I'll wait until I'm blue in the face for anyone to prove sunlight has these magical properties.

Sunlight is a source of low entropy energy. There are many ways to convert this energy to usable energy including the energy needed to overcome the activation energy of many chemical bonds. Chemical bonds that can produce compounds such as amino acids. (Although life on Earth did not need to start with amino acids just end up with amino acids.)

(BTW, amino acids can form in space)

In addition to sunlight as a source of energy, the mantle of the Earth is held in a molten state by radioactive materials. Those same materials are also available in the crust.

There is no lack of energy to start and maintain abiogenesis. The claim that abiogenesis 'breaks' the 2LoT is nothing more than a red herring thrown in to redirect attention away from the multiple lines of evidence that backs evolution. If you desire abiogenesis to be impossible you will have to come up with a better argument than the 2LoT.

You might also stop expecting a jump from non-life to life, it would not have happened that way and no scientist suggests it did.

"Evolution fails the priciples of the 2nd Law of Thermo in the creation process. There is no process known where a system evolving toward a "state of inert uniformity" explodes into complexity due to the addition of sunlight.

No it doesn't. What you have been told is a misrepresentation of evolution, abiogenesis and the 2LoT.

"Let's take another approach... Occam's Razor (I know this has gotten much abused since the movie "Contact", however...). Is it more likely...

"The Earth cooled. Life spontaneously occurs at the molecular level. This life evolves to become complex organisms in the sea first, then land. Somewhere along the way, this life finds a way to take flight and becomes birds. An ape stands upright and goes on to dominate the planet.

"or

"What God Himself told us was true. He created the Earth and its environments and then filled them with appropriate organisms. That He created variety through natural selection and adaptation doesn't contradict His Word or purpose.

What is more likely?

That life arose from the chemical creation of complex molecules from simpler molecules following all the laws of QM and Thermodynamics. Those molecules forming self replicating chains that through a process of imperfect replication and winnowing of the less viable chains change/improve over time.

Or

The creation of a highly complex, all powerful being that either 'thought' himself into existence or 'poofed' out of nothingness against every known law of physics?

"In one scenario, life is a cosmic accident devoid of meaning. Man is but the most advanced of the simians and will take a dirt nap at his end just to be food for the plants and bugs. In God's reality, man is created in His image and likeness and has a purpose to his life and his death beyond simple fertilizer.

It sounds like your argument has nothing to do with Occam's Razor but everything to do with your fear of a meaningless existence. That is unfortunate.

I have no problem feeling that my life has meaning, I just have to look at my grandson. If my son ever gets his gonads into gear I will have even more grandchildren to help make my life feel meaningful. Aside from that, I donate money, at my death I will donate organs; both which contribute to the 'meaning' of my life. In my work I help others improve their lives; that too gives my life meaning. At home my interaction with my wife and even my pets help give my life meaning.

The idea that evolution robs you of meaning is a silly, silly idea.

"I'm on God's side. Where science falters, He does not.

Except there is no evidence that he/she/it has influenced anything on Earth. An inactive god is no different than a non-existent god.

[b_sharp]

"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?

Photosynthesis is not the only way to produce sugars. In fact sugar as well as amino acids and alcohol has been found in space. This suggests that 1) amino acids, sugars and other useful molecules are extremely easy to produce and 2) those same molecules are quite common.

[King Prout]

Look, if an author misstates or distorts materiel from footnote citation it can be clearly shown. If Coulter does that it should be exposed. Arguments over the authors arguments pro and con are another matter. But faking or garbling quotes or misstating through selective quotation is another matter. If you have evidence of these sorts of authorial sins they should be highlighted.

I will take that as your variant of agreement to the terms. As the slave to my purposes has elected to flee, no harm comes from giving to you what I gave to Chances Are last week.

This is not my work. I stumbled across it while starting my own take on disassembling chapters 8 and 9 - which work can barely be considered begun. It is, however, quite potent: It details approximately ten errors of fact, citation, and representation, and rebuts them thoroughly.

I, like other FReepers, am working on my own tear-down. It will take a while. One of the major problems is Coulter's use of tertiary sources - AP fluff articles - as references. Tracking down pre-internet AP articles is difficult, perhaps impossible, without expensive subscription to specialty archives. This complicates things immensely.

[King Prout]

addendum - that is ten errors all culled from the same three pages of Godless - that alone should strike you as a cautionary.

[robowombat]

Yes this is what I was addressing. It appears to be pretty damning.

[b_sharp]

"From post #291: Actually it does. The argument against says that life isn't governed by this law. "

The argument against the 2LoT preventing evolution does not say that the 2LoT does not apply. It applies consistently. The argument is that under certain circumstances entropy may locally decrease. This is *not* against the 2LoT (statistical mechanics) but part of it.

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

Inert uniformity? Sorry, but the energy gradient between the Sun, the Earth and space provides a path where eddies of lower entropy can be produced as long as higher entropy occurs at some time in the future. We are nowhere near equilibrium.

[b_sharp]

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

I don't know where you are getting your information from but entropy is measurable in open systems too. In the 2LoT (ignore statistical mechanics) entropy is most readily visualized as the diffusion of heat from a 'hot' system to the cooler surroundings. This can be measured in both a closed and an open system.

[King Prout]

it is, so far as I have been able to tell thus far, the fate earned by the entirety of chapters 8 and 9, perhaps 10 and 11.

[soccermom]

Siggggghhhhhhh....for the ZILLIONTH time, there is no "aura" of untouchability. People have challenged these victims and did so long before Ann's book was published. Making personal attacks doesn't "puncture an aura of untouchability", rather it reenforces the claim that those who "touch" them are bullies. They may try to use the victim culture to advance their cause, but it hasn't advanced their cause. All Ann is doing is breathing new life into a "strategerie" that was failing on its own.

[pgyanke]

I can't argue with you on your points (and don't really have the time to do the research to try). My posts were a layman's understanding and you are demonstrably a journeyman. It may yet be that you are incorrect... but I am not the man to prove it.

As I stated early on, whatever processes God uses to mold His creation are no threat to my faith--and far above my pay grade. Find proof that God isn't the author of life and we'll have another conversation...

I concede your points. Thank you for having an intelligent conversation... it was sorely lacking on this thread.

[pgyanke]

... elected to flee...

Whatever.

Thanks for finally ponying up the link. My firewall at work won't let me visit the site... I'll check it at home later.

[b_sharp]

You are welcome.

Thank you. I always appreciate a civil discussion.