Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
About the only thing I could see you having issue with is people defending them, but the information proving that they did wrong had not previously been released (and even the released video isn't exactly absolute proof) so what else would you expect?
Humans.
Everyone makes that claim. Everyone claims the others are wrong. Everyone claims they aren't.
As an atheist, it just looks like one big ♥♥♥♥ waving ♥♥♥♥ show. With actual consequences.
Makes me wonder: if we evolved to be smart, why didn't it work?
Athiests do the exact same thing, only they shift the focus of their worship to temporal matters. "Just one more pile of skulls for the socialist utopia" being an obvious one.
Everyone has faith in one thing or another and is generally irrational in that specific context.
Most atheists don't care, they just don't believe. Atheists such as myself can source my belief to empirical data. The religious just have 'just believe'.
That's the difference in religion and reason.
https://youtu.be/GVJgmp2Tc2s?si=aXIJ0NedAwv0cmCZ
You point to one set of flawed information (such as ideologically biased research), they point at another set of flawed information (their scripture). You are in this regard completely identical, thinking your flawed information is infallible and everyone else is stupid for not accepting it.
And what research that would affect my beliefs are you calling biased?
Surely you have that information on hand.
(I'll be in a shower shortly, might get a quick reply before I do maybe not, but I'll be checking back in after).
None in particular. Everyone's is, because no matter how hard you try you cannot fully eliminate your own biases, and of course in reality eliminating biases is not anything more than handwaiving.
It's just a forgone conclusion. It's true of you. It's true of me. And even if in some bizarre hypothetical it wasn't true of you then anyone who does not agree with you would still think it is true of you and that is effectively the same.
Endogenous Retroviruse(ERV) loci don't vote red or blue, but really are the smoking gun when it comes to evolution. Beyond that, there's Human Chromosome 2 fusion, horizontal gene transfer and the amazing endosymbiotic mitochondria. All of these can be easily used to trace evolution backward, no fossils needed, just Occam's Razor.
Pretty cut and dry to me.
On the other hand "Dude, In The beginning God ..."
*sigh*
So a few deranged individuals engaged in disgusting behavior and were arrested and charged with serious crimes by their own government. Every nation on the planet has its share of sick individuals, and this looks like a story of the Israeli government punishing that bad behavior and doing the right thing.
Now, as a contrast, how many Palestinians have been arrested for the mass number of rapes and sexual abuse instances that occurred on Oct 7 and among the female hostages who were taken?
Religious people think that their scripture is cut and dry too, as bizarre as that might be to us.
And again you're making faith bases statements without realising that they are, the same as any religious person. For instance HC2F. Just because it appears that we're missing a chromosome and one of out chromosomes appears to be a merger of two separate chromosomes from near ancestors this does not mean that is the actual factual outcome. It is just what you take as faith based on the evidence that you have, and you have faith in the sources of your evidence. This is the exact same decision making process that religious people follow, just they have different ideas of what information sources are trustworthy. Before the 90's the idea of HC2F was not taken seriously by scientists, despite it coming about in the early 80's, and only became the mainstream view in the mid 2000's. But you're acting as if there could be no other conclusion, because based on your system of beliefs there could be no other conclusion.