[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

You seem to view terrorists as common criminals worthy of rights. I see them
as dedicated enemies of U.S.Constitutional protections, thus forfeiting 
any rights. 

> [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.

I don't know about the story of Scalia and the 1780 dictionary, but the 
idea that the American system can be changed at the whim of judge who, 
for example, looks to Europe for justification of his opinion, strikes 
me as not only misguided but outrageous. 

> [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.

Science as some social level aspects and religion has some intellectual 
level aspects. It is the "leaning toward" or as Pirsig puts it -- 
"dominance" -- that creates the dividing line. Seems clear to me.

> [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.

We can argue the relevancy of the argument by going through it point by 
point. But like I said, what's the point? Neither of us is going to 
change our view about global cooling, warming or the lack of either.


> [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.

Yes, no doubt life manifests itself  everywhere, but the first 
manifestation has, as far as I know, never been explained much less 
duplicated. "Complexity" by itself is no explanation. In fact the 
complexity of single cell is far beyond the laws of probability of 
being created ex nihilo -- as probable as the sudden appearance from 
nowhere of a Boeing 747.

> [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.

The various global-warming adherents predicted from their computer 
models that this would be a banner year for hurricanes. We know how 
accurate that was.

> [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.

I'm not familiar with Drake's equation, but wish him lotsa luck.

> [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.

Well, we don't know what it's like to be a germ, do we? In fact, I've 
come to the conclusion that what we know barely scratches the surface 
of what's out there. The "inner" being of beings is largely a mystery. 
Even those who are close to us carry on a steady conversation with 
themselves that they keep to themselves. Imagine what the world would 
be like if we could read minds!  But, I digress.