House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

[ski2xblack]

Then why push Atheism on kids too? I know it's hard for many to see evolution in a religious light, but essentially it's portrayed in atheistic light many times. I could care less if they present intelligent design and evolution. What is silly is only giving one view. That's limiting the exposure of kids to the world.

Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily imply religious belief. Just like we engineer things everyday it makes sense that another being even one equal to us in many ways could have engineered the earth. Of course both views aren't mutually exclusive as such I've come to the conclusion that we evolved through the guidance of intelligent design. This lines up with science and my own personal religious views. My beliefs fills in the gaps of evolution while understanding the beauty of the process.

The establishment clause prohibits promoting athiesm as well as religious beliefs. A teacher in Iowa was recently fired for saying that creationism is bs, for example, a clear cut case of violation of the establishment clause, and rightly upheld by the courts (the guy is a classic 'athiest jerk'). And if you will recall Pennsylvania's recent run in w/ ID, it was demonstrated that ID is indeed religious in nature, and that was also upheld, correctly, by the courts. Science classes need to teach science, not untestable theories such as ID. Believing that ID deserves equal standing as evolution indicates a misunderstanding of exactly what 'science' is.

Quite the contrary. I love science. I don't believe evolution has been proven, hence it still being a theory. I will say that; a) I am a Christian and yes, I believe in God as our creator. How he chose to bring it about is still up for debate, but not the fact He created the world and all in it, b) I'm not stupid and, c) this has been beaten to death in a couple of other threads that were very long and very closed. Dare we stroll very far down this path the same fate awaits this thread as most folks cannot discuss it civilly.
As for being taken seriously, when I mention the fact I am a Christian most often people who are not automatically think I'm an uneducated person that has been duped into believing ficticous writings and cannot possibly offer anything worthwhile. This is not a personal attack on you, but has been my experience in general.
Sorry to all for the OT.
Back on topic, I think this is interesting and am curious to see how this pans out.

Your comment that evolution is superstition was inflammatory, and quite different than the somewhat reasonable tone in the above post. Don't want to beat a dead horse either. But nothing in science is 'proven', which you should know as a lover of science; hypotheses are proposed, tested, and given empirical support using the scientific method, and change as new evidence dictates; it's slow and tedious, but in the quest for objective truth, its as good as it gets. Evolution is as close to 'proven' as you can get, and denial of that reality exposes your lack of understanding of science. As further proof of your misunderstanding, you are conflating evolution with creation myths; evolution pertains to the development and differentiation of species, not the creation of the world/universe/everything.

None of which has any bearing on your spritual beliefs, unless you're a fundie/biblical literalist. If you're faith is so strong, why do you even feel threatened by this? I didn't attack your faith, yet you are compelled to be defensive. Persecution complex? Paranoia? I also didn't say you were stupid, but you made a statement which indicates ignorance, which I'm happy to point out by asking why anyone should take your subsequent statements seriously. You are in the 'steam vent' after all, so toughen up or don't post. And if you believe and support the Constitution, why advocate for a state to break the law in order to promote religious doctrine? Public policy should reflect the best of what we know about the real world, not some faith-based ideology believed by only a segment of society.

And to both of you, this isn't about left vs right, its about reality-based worldveiw vs ideologically/dogmatically based worldview. I have several left-leaning and/or athiest friends who are afraid to innoculate their children because of some unscientific drivel they read on Huffington Post, and that sort of **** really makes me angry (as a licensed heath care professional). When people listen to this crap, children die, simple as that. There is idiocy in all parts of the political spectrum, a byproduct of the general war on rationality/intellectualism which our country has been stuck in, waged for the most part by social conservatives and religious ideologues, but also engaged in by hucksters of all political stripes.

It would be interesting indeed to see what would happen if OK goes off the deep end and creates their own little theocratic fiefdom out on the plains, ignores the Constitution, etc. Some southern states tried something similar before, and that really worked out swell, didn't it?

 

[ski2xblack]

Go for it OK!

The irony is that OK gets $1.36 in FEDERAL DOLLARS for every $1 it pays...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

So...if OK leaves....I probably speak for most people in the nice areas of the country by saying, good riddance, and give us our money back.

 

[lsiberian]

nothing in science is 'proven', which you should know as a lover of science; hypotheses are proposed, tested, and given empirical support using the scientific method, and change as new evidence dictates; it's slow and tedious, but in the quest for objective truth, its as good as it gets. Evolution is as close to 'proven' as you can get, and denial of that reality exposes your lack of understanding of science.

I think Gravity is more proven than evolution. Even the Theory of plate tectonics is more proven IMO. There are plenty of Unk Unks out there and we need to spend less time fighting over what we already know and more time pursuing what we don't understand. When Scientists take a presumed positions for the purpose of research that's fine, but the dogmatism I think we can agree goes against the spirit of science.

ID is certainly observable. The fact that humans have been using this process for 1000s of years is testament to the validity of it. Look at a banana. We cultivated that into what it is today. I hope in the next 1000 years we can cultivate our own bodies to their full potential.

If I make the hypothesis that a new species can be engineered from existing ones. I think there is plenty of evidence to support that hypothesis with plants, dogs, horses and many others.

As I've said I think both are true and the polarization of the two is caused by uneducated religious rhetoric from both sides. Both ideas are clearly demonstrated and logical.

 

[lsiberian]

The irony is that OK gets $1.36 in FEDERAL DOLLARS for every $1 it pays...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

So...if OK leaves....I probably speak for most people in the nice areas of the country by saying, good riddance, and give us our money back.

Let's not bash OU just because they need the charity of Texas. We are more than willing to help our less fortunate red river neighbors. Just know that come October we will be giving them a nice beat down for it.

Nothing like watching them all cry after they lost at the state fair last year. They came in talking trash and walked out with their mouths closed.

 

[ski2xblack]

I think Gravity is more proven than evolution. Even the Theory of plate tectonics is more proven IMO. There are plenty of Unk Unks out there and we need to spend less time fighting over what we already know and more time pursuing what we don't understand. When Scientists take a presumed positions for the purpose of research that's fine, but the dogmatism I think we can agree goes against the spirit of science.

ID is certainly observable. The fact that humans have been using this process for 1000s of years is testament to the validity of it. Look at a banana. We cultivated that into what it is today. I hope in the next 1000 years we can cultivate our own bodies to their full potential.

As I've said I think both are true and the polarization of the two is caused by uneducated religious rhetoric from both sides. Both ideas are clearly demonstrated and logical.

Whos spouting dogmatism? You're the one supporting ID, and that is a cop out, unscientific theory that states 'well, we don't understand something, so it must be God'. What you think is observable evidence of ID can be explained in simpler, reductive ways that do not rely on supernatural causation. None of the examples from biology as examples of ID stand up to scrutiny (unless you are just dying to have your faith validated and overlook non-superstitious explanations...and if you have to have your faith validated, then it's not really faith, now, is it?) If you really want to know how the world works, it is best to use the scientific method to find out, not throw your hands in the air and attribute it to some unseen, untestable, unresearchable supernatural phenomenon. Occam's razor, my friend. The simplest answer is most likely correct.

And regarding the examples from physics and geology, they are not proven, just well supported by observable evidence, but that does not preclude changing them as new information becomes available. Gravity will evolve if we ever come up with a GUT, for example, but for now we have to postulate dark matter and such to explain observed cosmic behavior. Our understanding of gravity is incomplete. Ditto for all of scientific knowledge; it changes as we gain more evidence, and nothing is sacrosanct. I'm not sure how you can consider that dogmatic. Science is a method, not a dogma, and the fruits of this method, scientific knowledge, is about as undogmatic as possible.

And it still seems to me that the proponents of the sovereignty thingie are misguided tools, but, hey, when the Feds come to my state to bust the producers of a legalized (by this State) plant, I expect the OK militia to help us fight the Federal tyrrany! States Rights, baby! Yeah, right. There is an argument to made for Federal overreach, but these bozos seem more interested in creating the Jesusland of the plains; if the Fed gov't has violated the Constitution, then sue them in Federal court.

 

[lsiberian]

Whos spouting dogmatism? You're the one supporting ID, and that is a cop out, unscientific theory that states 'well, we don't understand something, so it must be God'. What you think is observable evidence of ID can be explained in simpler, reductive ways that do not rely on supernatural causation. None of the examples from biology as examples of ID stand up to scrutiny

it is best to use the scientific method to find out, not throw your hands in the air and attribute it to some unseen, untestable, unresearchable supernatural phenomenon. Occam's razor, my friend.

Are we going from civil to anger so quickly? I'm surprised.

My issues with evolution and the big bang.
How can order form when the universe tends to chaos?

How does an internal system change without an external force?

How did it start?

How did life begin?

Evolution argues chance, and more theory. ID argues God both are equally valid options with plenty of supporting arguments.

So it comes down to a person's choice. Evidence points equally both ways. Each person makes they choice they are most comfortable with. This seems to be the case with much of life. Of course in theology we accept outside sources, experience, reason, and Tradition as valid basis for a position. Based on my own personal experiences, reasoning, outside sources and the Tradition I've chosen to become a Christian.

Trying to sum up a person's belief in God by saying they are just throwing their hands up in the air ignores tradition and 1000s of years of philosophy. Most people's beliefs aren't just a choice of throwing their hands up they come from rich traditions dating back before recorded history. These systems have helped us become who we are today.
FYI my faith is based on recorded eyewitness accounts that are corroborated and line up with historical records plus even to this day people see amazing unexplainable supernatural things happen.

My how these threads seem to get hijacked. But hey it's all in good fun and cordial discussion.

 

[ski2xblack]

[/I]

Are we going from civil to anger so quickly? I'm surprised. This isn't anger so much as a defense of something that any reasonable person would see the value of. I also like this sort of thing, and have a BA in philosophy, and thus am accustomed to rational argument and don't realize how some others may be easily offended. Sorry dude! Faith, by definition, is not even in the same ballpark as science, so when discussing reality, lets stick to reality. You want to talk faith? I could say nothing, nor would I care to, to attack your faith, unless you want to codify it in public policy, which seems to be a primary motivator for the OK legislation which began this thread. The constitution makes no mention of God at all, and religion is only mentioned in the 1st amendment, where it says 'gov't keep out of this one'. Our founders were intelligent enough to realize that each individuals relationship to the divine is their own personal thing, and nobody elses business, certainly not the gov't's. ID is the brainchild of Young Earth Creationist's, simple as that, and provides no evidence to support it's claims. Do you really believe the earth is 6000 years old?

My issues with evolution and the big bang.
How can order form when the universe tends to chaos?

How does an internal system change without an external force?

How did it start? Do you really care, or are you in need of validation of your 'faith'? If you really are genuinely curious, and you want answers that can stand up to rigorous scrutiny, science is your best bet. The answers you find may even enhance your feeling of reverence for this amazing universe we live in and ultimately strengthen your faith. There are many, however, who fail to use what God gave 'em, fail to use critical thinking skills, even dogmatically disparage science as 'evil', and want an easy answer that bypasses logic and reason, and they gave us ID.

How did life begin?

Evolution argues chance, and more theory. ID argues God both are equally valid options with plenty of supporting arguments. No, you're incorrect.

So it comes down to a person's choice. Evidence points equally both ways.not by a long shot Each person makes they choice they are most comfortable withtrue; many are simply uncomfortable with an empirical explanation which may conflict with their dogmatic religious beleifs. This seems to be the case with much of life. Of course in theology we accept outside sources, experience, reason, and Tradition as valid basis for a position. Based on my own personal experiences, reasoning, outside sources and the Tradition I've chosen to become a Christian. Christianity is corrupted by fundies who miss the entire message. Jesus made no claims about how this universe came to being, he was more concerned with how we treat our fellow man, something that seems lost on the fundies who want to currupt public policy with old testament wierdness (ID in science classes, 10 commandments displayed in public buildings, etc.) I suppose you can live by the word of Jesus regarding your conduct, but if you don't think the earth was created 6000 years ago you'll burn in hell, right?)

Trying to sum up a person's belief in God by saying they are just throwing their hands up in the air ignores tradition and 1000s of years of philosophy.I was criticizing ID, a permutation of creationism that came about in the last couple decades; I am not in any way trying to 'sum up a person's belief in God'. Isiberian, you aren't one of these persecution complex fundies, are you? Most people's beliefs aren't just a choice of throwing their hands up they come from rich traditions dating back before recorded history. These systems have helped us become who we are today.
FYI my faith is based on recorded eyewitness accounts that are corroborated and line up with historical records plus even to this day people see amazing unexplainable supernatural things happen.And someone who has no knowledge of Ohms Law may find your fancy hi-fi miraculous, too. Does that make it so?

Again, I am not attacking people of faith. I will, however, attack simple minded ideas which aspire to have the same credibility as science when it comes to knowledge. ID doesn't cut it, and deserves ridicule.

My how these threads seem to get hijacked. But hey it's all in good fun and cordial discussion.Thanks for playing!

Isiberian, if you are curious about the origins of life, I would suggest 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins. If you want a logically consisten creation myth, the best one I've read is from Azimov, but can't recall the name of the story right now.

 

[rnatalli]

I'm an agnostic myself, but lean in favor of Evolution. Order can come from chaos; it just takes enormous amount of time and space. There's also quite a bit of genetic evidence to support evolution which is convincing. But overall, here are a few of my thoughts:

1. If there is a God or Creator, he/she clearly isn't omnipotent as we humans will exceed his/her ability to design and have already discovered ways things could have been made better.

2. If there is a God or Creator, he/she clearly isn't benevolent. A benevolent being doesn't torture another just to prove a point.

3. If there is a God or Creator, he/she left this place a long time ago.

4. If there is a God or Creator, it shouldn't have taken this long for humans to reach this point.

Note that I'm not arguing against the existence of a supreme being. For all I know, one does exist and set things in motion. But I certainly don't believe in a kind, all-knowing one.

 

[ski2xblack]

Note that I'm not arguing against the existence of a supreme being. For all I know, one does exist and set things in motion. But I certainly don't believe in a kind, all-knowing one.

Better be careful lest you piss Her off!

To each their own. Unless they try to evangelize to me. Born right the first time, thanks.

It seems there is a historical trend from polytheism, to monotheism, which will terminate in atheism. Unless you're in the Oklahoma state government. They seem to be going another way.

Texas Gov is again talking secession. Gotta love it.

 

[ski2xblack]

How did life begin?

Isiberian, thought you may enjoy this:

http://exploringorigins.org/timeline.html

And this:

http://www.mentalindigestion.net/?p=825

The second one is a synopsis of an article in the May 14th edition of Nature (subscription required for full text, damn those selfish scientists!), and is essentially about the synthesis of self-replicating molecules (RNA) from simple chemical constituents which were abundant on primordial Earth. This is one of the keys to the origins of life on earth, at a stage even before the first cells evolved. Fascinating stuff.