Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

I am beginning to like Indiana more and more.

Is it common for you to generalize and stereotype a geographic area based on the opinions of one person? just curious.

I hear that, I was in Fort Wayne the last weekend in January, and it snowed melted, snowed melted, experienced my first white out, then an hour later it was sunny with blue skies.Still I dig Indiana from French Lick, to Jasper, to Greencastle, Indianapolis, to Kokomo, to Fort Wanye to Warsaw, every place has been great from my POV.

oh...yeah i forgot about that Dr. Strawman, thanks for the reminder.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Not that I can tell, though the only place I had any education out here was at George Mason University, and it was a science heavy area of study (geospatial intelligence). I have only lived here for 4 years.I would guess that the rest of Virginia (the real southern state), would be more like this though I am unsure. Northern Virginia is probably 50% transplants mostly people with jobs in support of the nations capital (I live 1.5miles from the POTUS). This is the Urban VA, its very yuppy, and very multicultural. These are some of the richest counties in America. Now the rest of the commonwealth, well that is a different story entirely.

I guess the bill will have to be challenged then.All I got from it was when the origin of life comes up, they will teach various theories about this issue.Does anyone really know how life started on this planet?

So should schools not teach anything on the origin of life, because the answer is not confirmed?orshould they teach a variety of theories, and simply say "these are the various explanations" that we have, but a general consensus has yet to be determined?

try and stay on topic, this is about the origin of life and I asked a specific question about it, or is this just your snarky way of saying you have no clue? after the Bison v Buffalo thing, I learned I could use terms around here however i wanted to. ahh that is right, there isn't a confirmed answer yet on the origin of life as appropriate to teach to kids.are you suggesting we just default to science on this one due to faith in science?

based on what evidence?

lack of evidence is not evidence, you seem to be saying that because there is no evidence then that is evidence that the bible is wrong.interesting logic you have there

Which is exactly what you just did with your worthless post. You are part of the problem with posts like this, not the solution.

maybe so, but I have never once said anything about the literal interpretation of the bible, other than beware of sola scriptura. you can take that straw man elsewhere.I just stated that since the origin of life is unknown, that no one hypothesis is any better than the other.I know you really want to put words into my mouth so you can argue your side, but this aint my 1st rodeo.

Real world, like say from text in a book written by people thousands of years ago? And if the bible is not legitimate for study, then what can be said of hieroglyphics, cuneiform, any ancient language that we still (luckily) have today? Ok, but this bill is concerning the origin of life, and various religious ideas about it. The bill states nothing about Science class. I realize that science class is your huge hang up here, even though it is not mentioned.It’s usually very difficult to get off topic in your own thread but I think I just witnessed it. You got mad skillz hooah! you are more cryptic than I am, I know better than to ask you for evidence (cause you aint got none).

if it was obvious then it would say it. what you are doing here is classic straw manning.

no, i am not the one stating what is obvious based on a personal POV, I am reading the letter of the law, instead of reading into the letter of the law. on a subject with no answer like say "the origin of life"? I would say both have an equal chance for discussion of theories, though I thought science was more concerned with observable evidence, and therefore would probably not dwell on something that there was no evidence for like the origin of life.