[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> I don't think we have much trouble identifying Islamic terrorists any
> more than we had identifying combatants in WW II, Korea and Vietnam. Did
> we charge them? No.  
> 
> [Case]
> They were held in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The Bush
> administration claims that these prisoners are not covered under the
> Convention. Or government has stepped outside of all law on this one. I
> still say nothing can justify this. I don't see how you can square this
> with your concern for individual rights.

As I've said several times, those who would destroy individual rights 
forfeit individual rights protection.

> [Platt]
> Agree. The individual is a minority of one and as such is most in need
> of protection from the majority.
> 
> [Case]
> Totally agree. The Miranda decision, Civil Rights decisions, Roe v Wade,
> and a host of others have been championed by the court. I find it odd
> then that the right favors returning individual as well as federal
> rights back to the states. This non-sense about activist judges is
> cynical extemeism.

Activist judges are those who hand down decisions not specifically 
covered by constitutional authority, Roe vs. Wade being a prime 
example.  (Guess you can tell I'm a conservative.)

> [Platt]
> If I have interpreted the MOQ correctly, science and religion are on
> separate levels. But, I could be wrong.
> 
> [Case]
> But you could be right. Why do you think this? What is different about
> them to warrant separate quarters?

Science is largely based on intellectual criteria. Religion is largely 
based on social tradition (except for those "born again").

> [Platt]
> When those characters start sending suicide bombers into our cities, in
> effect declaring war on the U.S., they will forfeit their rights.
> 
> [Case]
> So they actually have to destroy something physical? Wasn't McVeigh a
> big fan of Koresh? 

Yes, action is punishable. Being a fan isn't.  

> [Platt]
> You are not aware of the global cooling predictions a few years ago?
> Anyway, it looks as if we'll never agree on this issue,  so arguing
> about it would be a waste of time don't you think?. 
> 
> [Case]
> Not really a waste. What was the global cooling deal?

You might want to check out http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm

> [Platt]
> Don't think so. The laws of probability are fairly well established as
> being intellectually sound. Perhaps you can explain why in this case
> there application is a "perversion." To assign creative power to chance
> seems anti-intellectual to me, like saying "it's a miracle." 
> 
> [Case]
> It is not the law of probability that are unsound it is the Intelligent
> Designers. They rest their claims on the idea of irreducible complexity.
> They are saying that something's are so complex they could not possibly
> occur by chance. This assumes we know what the chances are and what
> factors would be required to produce the outcome.

Are you saying we don't know what the chances are and what factors are
required to produce the outcome of life emerging from non-life? If we 
don't know, "chance" says nothing more than "Ooops - a miracle." If we 
do know, we should be able to create life at will. 

> What we see in looking
> at the laws of probability is that very complicated arrangements are
> possible from very simple input. Various computer models and nature
> herself give the impression that eyes are fairly likely outcomes in the
> world we live in.

I don't think computer models prove much of anything. There ability to 
accurately predict the weather is not one I would want to bet on. 
Models leave out the mind that created the models.
 
> I do not ascribe power of any kind to chance. Chance is a description of
> the probability of what will come or what has been. What we see are
> things rearranging themselves NOW. The probability of any particular
> arrangement is a function of the nature of the things and their present
> arrangement.

You lost me. Since life presumably originated only once, what is the 
probability of it happening again?
 
> Whether this is creative or destructive is a matter of Value.

What looks like destructive can be creative and vice versa. Depends
on one's perspective, right? (The germ wants to live, the patient wants 
to live.)