[MD] Sin Part 1

[Case]

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

[Case]
I guess that about wraps that one up then because I thought the purpose of
due process was to determine whether a person's individual rights should be
forfeited or not. If you think an accusation is sufficient I think you are
being terrible inconsistent.

[Platt]
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.)

[Case]
A judge's duty is to interpret the law. Saying that it should be interpreted
by some imagined ability to know the mind of the founders strikes me as
disingenuous. Saclia used a dictionary circa 1780 to check the meanings of
words for example. This idea that the American system is frozen in the
1700's and should not change with existing contingencies is as misguided as
the idea that it can be altered willy nilly.

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

[Case]
Science is a social system with rites of initiation and rituals for
determining consensus. It has a social structure and builds on the past.
Religion has all that in spades but there is also a deep intellectual
tradition in all religions as well. While one may lean toward intellectual
and one may lean toward social their is no fixed line of demarcation that I
can see.

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

[Case]
I did read a big chunk of this and found not much on cooling. This guy was
an amateur objecting to taking action on the environment for economic and
political reasons. This is exactly the kind of argument that is not
relevant.

[Platt]
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. 

[Case]
We have some idea of some of the factors required for life to emerge from
non-life. Liquid water tops the list I believe. In fact an interesting
theory on the origins of live on earth is pointing to the deep sea floor
near volcanic vents and plate edges. There life exists in near boiling
conditions. There is a constant inflow of energy and a chemistry of
sufficient complexity. Life in these places would be shielded from global
catastrophes. But it didn't necessarily only start once here. This a
Goldilocks zone and life finds a way to manifest itself all over the place.

[Platt]
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.

[Case]
The point is that models allow you to test variables and see what factors,
at what relative weights, influence outcomes. The weather is a chaotic
system and even it could not model itsel. That is, if you could rest Katrina
to exactly a week before it hit New Orleans you could not say with any
certainty that it would hit New Orleans again.
 
[Platt]
You lost me. Since life presumably originated only once, what is the
probability of it happening again?

[Case]
Drake's equation seeks to identify the various necessary conditions for live
to evolve. It is a crude first step but it is there.
 
[Platt]
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.)

[Case]
I don't think germs "want" anything but yes.