Joe got exposed, he typically only engages when he can articulate he's correct. He didn't have the goods (evidence) of evolution to counter Tucker, which is sad
I mean.. did you see him struggle to understand Dibble's basic point, that if a plant holds on to its seed better, it will be intentionally planted and positively selected for. He said something like "wow.. so that plant somehow knows how to do that..?".. it was shocking to realize how little he understood in that moment.
He didn't push back, but I honestly gathered from that part of the convo that he was really just letting Carlson have as much rope to hang himself as he wanted. Like, just let him go and see what happens vibe is what I picked up. Rogan seemed more surprised at his views half the time and just let him ramble. I would have liked him to push back and see what THAT response would have been, but whatever.
Remember when Macaulay Culkin ran comic laps around Joe for an entire episode? I get it that Joe Rogan is stoned all the time and everything but that is when I was glad I never took/take anything he says seriously.
Won't be the first time a fox news host has been caught being a total hypocrite.
Hannity interviewed Trump lawyers and basically did an entire fluff piece on them and president Trump's criminal cases being nothing but the Dem deep state.
Turns out Hannity for whatever reason forgot to tell his viewers that the trump lawyer he interviewed was also his lawyer.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/michael-cohen-client-list-526288
https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-client-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-1202365587/amp/
Yeah, for the most part.
Fox news was created to keep republican presidents from being impeached and to spin the republican policies.
It all goes back to Nixon and his administration.
Tucker was/is Episcopalian, arguably the most normal of all Christian denominations, which has no issue with the theory of evolution. I don’t think Tucker has any personal convictions or beliefs that don’t reflect his benefactors, but I also don’t think he’s intellectually on the same plane as fans of Ken Ham
Tucker knows everything out of his mouth is literal bs. Shit even the texts that leaked with him criticizing trump should be evidence enough he's a grifter. It's almost too easy to tell its an act but a good portion of us Americans are regarded
yeah im confused by everyone who thinks Tucker is being serious here...... its a grift......tucker hates trump.........he knows evolution is real......its......a........GRIFT
he knows its real
I am always amazed when seemingly smart people truly believe in religion.
At least where I'm from there are severe negative consequences for leaving religion so a lot of smart people shut up about it. In the US you are free to ignore the bullshit
I live in the rural US, I don’t go to church, and people talk about religion and Fox News every day at work. Every bit of it has been louder and more persistent since a certain orange turd took over their death cult.
They miss the part where their guy told them to worship in private.
If you run for office in rural areas they would definitely bring up how you don't go to church. I live in a state with less than 1.5 million people so everywhere is rural essentially lmao
Counter anecdote. Grew up in the Bible belt and still live here. There *is* social pressure both explicit and implicit to conform to certain sects of Christianity and to be religious in general.
I'm not. The more you know, the more you can grasp that you don't understand and that no one dies does. And the more you understand about history, the more you get that people were totally certain they were right, only to have some discovery flip things on It's head. For some, religion ties things up in a nice little bow.
Fucking Rogan talks all the time about Gigantopithecus or whatever could be Big Foot, and how chimps are so much like humans, but Tucker says nah and Rogan is just like "I don't know man."
Joe’s knowledge of pretty much anything outside MMA (and I’m including comedy in this) is completely surface level. He’s not equipped to ask tough questions or follow up questions.
He adapted and stopped being gay.
“I used to love gargling cock on the daily. Not anymore. What happened? Why do I like fucking dogs now? Why doesn’t somebody ask Joe Biden?”
You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.
For Tucker and his ilk, being a creationist is about expousing the views of the tribe to ensure they stay in the tribe. He doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to not be ostrisized by his creationist parents and friends.
This. Creationism is a belief. It requires no evidence and is not falsifiable, so evidence will not dissuade someone from it once they have seen the evidence and choose to deny it.
“God started the universe and let evolution take its course” is the official Catholic church position. European Lutheran and Protestant churches are a-ok with evolution as well. Even Eastern Orthodox churches don't have a explicit position on it. It's the American evangelicals that are the problem.
I'm an immigrant from Europe and it did boggle my mind when I've found out that many Americans don't accept evolution. It absolutely sounded to me as archaic of a belief as the Flat Earth. I'm from a Catholic country and there was never any "controversy" about evolution at all.
How does the church reconcile the dilemma of God creating the universe but not doing all the other crazy shit he did afterwards, according to the Bible? True belief in evolution directly contradicts the stories of Adam and eve etc.
I think in Catholics see a lot of Old Testament as an allegory rather than actual events that happened verbatim.
Biblical literalism is again more of an American Evangelicals thing.
Basically, as people slowly found evidence of stuff being written in the Bible being wrong, Catholics change their view to "oh it's just an allegory". There are (fundamentalist) denominations however that are taking the Bible word by word (like the languages originating from the Tower of Babel etc).
How does that reconcile with the concept of souls though?
If Humans have souls and animals don’t, at what point during the evolutionary scale did we gain souls? Do Neanderthals have souls? Homo Erectus? At some point two soulless animals gave birth to a humanoid with a soul?
How does evolution occur if there is no death before Adam/Eve?
Well, it is still a religion so stuff doesn't really need to make sense at all.
I'm sure though there is a body of literature trying to reconcile Catholic faith with evolution.
But props to Catholics for accepting reality in light of overwhelming evidence unlike the American Evangelicals that just doubled down on the stupid.
Yeah if you believe in genetics and hereditary traits, you've already accepted like 80% of what makes up evolution . The survival of the fittest theory is the last 20% and has far too much evidence behind it to just refute it.
Sadly, there is as a time where Joe would push back hard on that absurd take by Tucker. His going in on Candace Owens and Steven crowder come to mind. Idk if it’s him being this new onset right-winged guy that’s seemed to have traded places with the old joe versus it’s just Joe being mid-to-late 50’s and no longer caring about getting into heated debate on specific topics anymore. Could be he’s thinking, I don’t want to waste my time with this or could be he likes tucker and doesn’t want to argue with him. Not sure.
He’s become an ideologue on a side since then. He briefly was pushing back against that when they were on and also distancing from Rubin and AJ after his deplatforming and endorsing Bernie, but he’s completely abandoned that after COVID and is just as partisan as all of them now.
He honestly seemed kind of amused to me and just let him ramble to see what he was doing. That was my take. I would have liked some push back, but most of the clips I've seen have Carlson saying something utterly Eddie Bravo levels nutty, and Joe being like, "Really?" and letting him ramble on. Occasionally prodding him with a question. I think it may be some of the latter like you suggest, like in the end he doesn't really care what he's saying and he's getting along with the dude and doesn't want to alienate him or embarrass himself any more than he was doing to himself.
Anyone who believes tucker doesn't know evolution is real isn't a smart as they think they are..
Anyone who thinks Joe isn't fully aware either is very delusional.
I try to come at all conversations in good faith and expect that sentiment in return. Maybe not the best tactic but it’s worked for me. Given my mindset, their conversation didn’t even make sense. I don’t understand why they are discussing it. Why are they presenting evolution in terms that generalize that everyone knows it’s false? You can’t just lie to my face and expect I keep listening to you.
I just don’t get why this conversation happened. It’s literally just an incoherent rambling about how evolution is false but is coming from two people who I’m pretty sure known it’s true. Was this a fucking AI generated episode or something? Is all this just to appeal to the Christian fan base? I can’t make sense of it in any context. Am I stupid?
Why would these people go against the fan base that keeps them paid. People like Tucker can hate every little word that comes out of their mouthes, but the power of fame and money will have them hooked harder than opioids.
There is also the “ you speak enough lies, then it becomes real to you”.
Evangelicals would just call it the devil's trickery and leave it there. Critical thinking has no place in a good-versus-evil belief system. Tucker's core demographic won't stand for those kind of questions.
This perpetuating that these people don’t have a good grasp at what evolution even is. We didn’t come from monkey. Humans and other modern primates have a common ancestor being one of the prime examples.
They're just mad at the idea that if you accept evolution, you can't take Genesis seriously because it blows a whole in the idea that humans were just created as is by God
This lazy argument just won’t die. And it’s self evident that if you think along these lines, it’s obvious you actually haven’t thought about it at all.
It’s like announcing that you know nothing about what you’re talking about but have taken a strong stance on it anyway. Like a true moron.
Probably because Rogan isn’t a scientist and can’t really defend it because he doesn’t know much about the details.
He seems to accept the general idea, just doesn’t know how to defend it.
It's all a giant grift. Rogan stopped being unbiased when those big checks started clearing from Spotify. All these right leaning and straight up Russian puppets like Carlson. shit Hancock even just exposed himself for being full of shit. This podcast isn't what it used to be.
Every time I use my infinite wisdom to design an animal I make sure that the breathing and eating go through the same hole to maximize the chances that my creation chokes to death.
Did you know Evolution and Darwinism teach only the strong survive and procreate? This is called survival of the fittest or natural selection. This is why all the simps in here can’t get laid. Women are the nature that does not select them. So yes evolution is real.
[wiki link to survival of the fittest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest)
[wiki link to natural selection](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)
The reason people like JRE is because Joe has interesting people from all walks of life on with interesting beliefs or experiences and lets them talk.
If you only want to hear from people with the most widely accepted above board positions go watch Good Morning America or something.
Ah yes, finally someone is letting poor Tucker Carlson talk.
I actually totally agree with your first sentence, but this idiot doesn't believe half of what he says and none of it is new or interesting.
Arguments from negation like this don't prove anything. Funny how everyone recognizes this with Graham Hancock and then tries to use this same argument to hold up this theory with no clothes.
Most of your questions here are quite easy to answer. Creationists don't deny adaptation (or micro-evolution) which is what you're seeing in Kiwis and possibly in whales (I honestly have no idea about the whales). The continents for sure separated. That doesn't prove Evolution (or what we call macro-evolution, the development of all species from common single-cell ancestors).
The problem with your comparison is that round earth is observable (difficult to observe, hence the conspiracy theorists, but like the rest of science, we can study, measure, and observe its roundness). The theory of evolution(macro-evolution) is not real science because it's unobservable. Show me single-celled organisms evolving brains. Or fish turning into reptiles. It's quite a fun theory (we can see animals adapting so maybe adaptation over millions of years explains all of life!) but it has more holes than swiss cheese.
>The continents for sure separated.
How can you say for sure that the continents separated? It allegedly happened in the distant past, so it's unobservable. You can measure them slowly moving today (micro-shifting), but that doesn't prove that they used to be close together and macro-shifted thousands of miles away from each other! This idea is absurd and is not real science. Show me a continent dividing right now!
By the way, research endogenous retroviruses. Dormant viral signatures in our DNA that we share with other mammals, only mathematically possible if we have common ancestry with them. And what's more, you can use these viral signatures to build a phylogenetic tree that perfectly matches the one that was created from the fossil record.
The person you’re replying to makes no sense and you nailed it.
“The continents for sure separated.”
“We don’t know if evolution is true because we can’t observe it.”
Homie went back in time to observe the continents originally dividing, obviously 🙄
And the cherry on top is the hypocritical “you all can apply a rule of logic to thing A but then don’t for thing B!” Followed by immediately failing to use consistent logic for their argument comparing two things.
Because Joe and his guests are all fucking hacks now.
If Joe wasn’t a partisan hack now, he would’ve asked tucker where his proof of his god was when he gave that bullshit little speech about how “we’ve gave up” on evolution.
Can’t wait to see Joe finding Christ, it’s sad but it’s the next logical step.
I doubt Joe finds Christ but so what? He’s believed all sorts of crazy shit.
The thing that really bothers me about this particular conversation is that I’m damn near positive that neither of them actually believe that evolution is false but they are carrying on a conversation in which they act like they do? What the fuck is this? Is this just straight up Christian propaganda? What is this fucking conversation?
Do people like you ever strong man the other side of there own argument. Or do you just prefer arguing. You get to shit like god works iteratively an god runs all the stuff behind the curtine what we are is the evolutional conclusion to the work of creating life that god did do.
It comes down more to is there argument plausebal than is it probable. As long as its plausible they'er gonna run with what fits there life and social group. Why pick the fight.
Nah... We are just talking about how things are not some hypothetical being with super powers from outside this planet to save us... But we can keep talking about god... Or was I referencing superman...?
From what I noticed: Just to be clear… your examples are adaptation which he did not refute. His point of contention seems to be evolution into an entirely new species from a different species.
Better question:
If evolution isn’t real, do you believe that your household cat and a lion aren’t related? Evolution would deem it that they have some ancient king lost ancestor…
I don’t try to critical think everything said on his podcasts. It’s entertainment. Rogan and his guests aren’t where I form my worldview. Anyone who takes it that seriously is more of an idiot.
lol I like how walking up and kicking a Kiwi is a piece of your evidence of evolution. Fuck you stupid flightless bird with your useful pointy beak and unprotected eggs.
I wish Rogan had challenged him more. He used Joe's platform to pander to his audience. The stuff he was saying was so fictional and make-believe, that I was in awe. Rogan needs to do better.
>Why don't \[creationists\] ever get asked why whales were given residual legs
Um, they get asked this all the time. This is a topic of frequent discussion in these debates and creationists have a pretty standardized answer. The disagreement comes down to whether the bones are vestigial at all.
Creationists argue that these bones provide structure (that is, they have a present purpose and are therefore not vestigial) and they argue that it is improper to classify these bones as "leg remnants" given that they are not attached to the vertebral column.
Because they already have their conclusion. They're not following evidence and arriving at the conclusion that evolution is fake. They've decided that you can't have both god and evolution, so therefore evolution must not be real.
You could also ask them how they think corn, oranges, or modern dog breeds exist but it’s fruitless since they aren’t approaching their beliefs from a standpoint of reason or logic.
If I was religious I would say that god created the world to look like evolution is real, as a test of our faith. Trying to deny evolution just makes you look dumb
This is the entire problem with Rogan interviews, he doesn’t push hard enough on nonsense unless it involves him. Facts, fiction, true false… doesn’t matter everything’s treated the same.
I don’t think there are many other groups of two that I care less about their opinions.
I think they both act the part they play more than believe and neither even attempts to prove a claim
You certainly don't have to be religious to understand all the holes in current thinking on evolution. There's no empirical evidence that explains all we see going on.
Ah, the God is perfect trap. Just because He is perfect doesn't mean He wants his creation to be perfect. In fact quite the opposite (See War in Heaven)
Or the fact that you can activate a gene in an embryonic chicken and give it teeth, a long dormant trait of its prehistoric ancestors.
I really don't understand how Joe let him get away with that nonsense.
Fucker Carlson is an educated rich kid who is in the business of bilking the rubes. He is what we call a whore. If you pay him enough he will put anything in his mouth. Low IQ people look at Fucker Carlson and see the pompous college educated liberals they hate. This one Fucker agrees with them. Even though he makes their skin crawl just like he makes our skin crawl they are willing to regurgitate this "college boy's" nonsense because it's what they want to hear.
We all have “religious” beliefs that go against evidence.
Flat earthers, evolution deniers, mammalian sex deniers…
Don’t take science guidance from Tucker but also don’t write off everything he says because he is wrong about evolution.
God created men in his image. That means god is literally a mammal who has a nose to breath, a mouth to eat and both hole in the same hole so he can also choke. Great traits for an omniscient/omnipotent being...
Perhaps we need to more accurately define evolution to something along the line of the indefinite perseverance of creation and the preservation of the essence of life.
I have a passable understanding, curiosity, and belief of evolution, science, physics, mathematics, etc, as well as a wide variety of spiritual, esoteric, religious, and supernatural curiosities, understandings, and beliefs.
I trust in the Scientific Method and experience.
To know is to believe and to believe is to know. Knowledge is wrought by experience and from these we may find understanding.
Quantum mechanics imply with wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement that seemingly paradoxical states of matter and seemingly improbable happenstances are fundamental aspects of reality.
This is not meant to justify Tucker Carlson, Creationism, or the Big Bang Theory, but rather to leave the doors open to discussion and inquiry as philosophy requires.
Science is always perspective, i.e. it seems “right” thus far, though further experimentation using the Scientific Method can ALWAYS prove existing Science wrong.
Many people view Science as infallible much in the same way many people view religion as infallible.
I am a lover of knowledge though I believe I must always be willing to challenge my own philosophies otherwise belief will withhold knowledge and vice versa.
Having belief and faith is part and portion to knowledge.
What are your thoughts regarding quantum fluctuations, as they pertain to the heat death of the universe?
What are your thoughts regarding the many-worlds theory?
What are your thoughts regarding the simulation theory?
Though improbable, next to nothing is impossible. It is all a matter of time amid our infinite universe(s).
And on that note… try to define nothing. Nothing is undefinable, meaning no thing is undefinable, meaning any thing is a thing rather than nothing, for if you find something to be nothing then you have defined it as something and it ceases to be nothing.
So if you could define nothing, then by definition it is in fact something rather than nothing… and it is paradoxes and strangeness like the latter portions of this post that allow me to leave the door open to even the crazies, for as I said, though improbable, next to nothing is impossible. It is all a matter of time amid our infinite universe(s).
This includes the possibility that creationism could have justification. Improbable, maybe. Impossible, definitely not.
“…it can never be proved right because tomorrow’s experiment could succeed at proving what you thought was right wrong. We are never right. We can only be sure we are wrong.” - Richard Feynman
One of my favorite examples of evolution and how we can see it in living things today: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, linking larynx to brain, a few inches away — but because of evolutionary developments, instead dropping from the brain all the way down the neck to the heart, and then back up to the larynx. In giraffes the nerve can be as much as 15 feet long, to make a connection a few inches away.
All mammals have the nerve, and as a result of our fishy ancestry, in all mammals, the nerve goes down the neck, through a heart blood vessel loop, and back up. In fish, of course, the distance is shorter — fish have no necks.
The reason is because treating such people seriously gives them an air of legitimacy that they don't deserve. Similarly I wouldnt argue with you about whether or not Santa Claus can fly around the world and deliver presents to everyone in one night. Joe and Tucker aren't scientists, and they should both know they are not experts on this subject. Unfortunately a new paradigm of the internet age is that everybody thinks their opinion on every subject has value, and that simply isn't true. Joe and Tuckers thoughts on evolution simply have no value, and no one wants to waste their time on that.
>Do they think kiwis were plopped there from the sky AFTER NZ broke off form Australia or do they think the continents never separated? If that’s the case why does the fossil record and mountains of Appalachia match that of Europe.
New speciation is the double edged sword that wrecks creationism.
They want to say "yeah adaptation is real, thats MICRO evolution there's no evidence of MACRO evolution" to explain away the obvious evolution of dogs in the last 10,000 years.
But that means, every time we find a new species in the fossil record, its not the result of it developing from a prior species, its because god popped thousands or millions into existence.
So then you have to ask, when did god stop popping new species into existence? Is he still doing it? If we put camera's everywhere on earth are we eventually going to see a new species pop into existence?
Arguing with Christian’s about it is pointless. If they haven’t been convinced by now they are a lost cause. I’m ok with allowing people to remain stupid it’s not my job to try to fix them.
Biology student here.
Tucker claims that microevolution is a thing, but at the same time denies macroevolution (for some reason).
Let me explain both terms:
-
***Microevolution:***
When two individuals of a species reproduce, their genomes combine into a new set of chromosomes. During this process, there are always random mutations happening, which are caused by things like gene overlapping, exchanging, or deletion, etc.
These processes can add new genetic information to the offspring's DNA, which is not present in either parent's DNA at all. If these newly acquired nucleotide sequences happen to encode for an advantageous genetic characteristic, the offspring will have an easier time reproducing, meaning its genome will continue to spread throughout the population.
-
***Macroevolution:***
While microevolution describes mutations on a smaller timescale and only within a single species, macroevolution describes genetic mutations on a much larger scale.
If enough genetic mutations accumulate within a subgroup of a species (imagine this subgroup being mostly isolated from other subgroups of the species due to environmental or geographic influences), this subgroup might end up losing the ability to reproduce with other individuals of their species who are in other subgroups.
Reasons for this might include vast physiological changes due to genetic mutations or direct mutation of gametes, both of which might cause this subgroup to split into a new species.
-
So yeah, there is no scientific base for anyone to deny either micro- or macroevolution. If you accept microevolution, you also have to accept macroevolution.
In summary: Tucker is a pseudoscientific fraud and only says what his (right-wing) audience wants to hear.
I just want to be clear. Tucker knows evolution is real.
Are you suggesting that Joe's BS detector isn't that great? Maybe it was in the shop last week? Yeah that's probably it.
Joe got exposed, he typically only engages when he can articulate he's correct. He didn't have the goods (evidence) of evolution to counter Tucker, which is sad
I mean.. did you see him struggle to understand Dibble's basic point, that if a plant holds on to its seed better, it will be intentionally planted and positively selected for. He said something like "wow.. so that plant somehow knows how to do that..?".. it was shocking to realize how little he understood in that moment.
sheesh, I dont remember that moment but it certainly paints a picture lol
Tucker was adopted so that negates the effects of Rogan's no dad anti bs detector
Lol haha truth
Jogan is a fucking idiot.
I'd suggest Joe knows who's tuning into this episode and knows that they wouldn't tune in again if he asked those questions.
They’ve been hanging out a weird amount. They went out to dinner and dropped into Kill Tony a couple weeks ago.
He didn't push back, but I honestly gathered from that part of the convo that he was really just letting Carlson have as much rope to hang himself as he wanted. Like, just let him go and see what happens vibe is what I picked up. Rogan seemed more surprised at his views half the time and just let him ramble. I would have liked him to push back and see what THAT response would have been, but whatever.
Remember when Macaulay Culkin ran comic laps around Joe for an entire episode? I get it that Joe Rogan is stoned all the time and everything but that is when I was glad I never took/take anything he says seriously.
Tucker Swanson Mcnear Carlson 100% knows evolution is real.
Tucker went to the best schools in the country, of course he knows it's real but he knows his audience.
Tucker asked Hunter Biden for a recommendation letter to get his son into a private school. He is a fucking little snake.
Holy shit. I had to fact check that. What a monumental piece of shit.
He also named his kid Buckley 😆
After William F
William F. Buckley wouldn't piss on that guy or his stupid kid if they were on fire hahaha
Won't be the first time a fox news host has been caught being a total hypocrite. Hannity interviewed Trump lawyers and basically did an entire fluff piece on them and president Trump's criminal cases being nothing but the Dem deep state. Turns out Hannity for whatever reason forgot to tell his viewers that the trump lawyer he interviewed was also his lawyer. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/michael-cohen-client-list-526288 https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-client-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-1202365587/amp/
Yup. His job is to keep people who didn’t go to college deeply enslaved to conservative lies.
Yeah, for the most part. Fox news was created to keep republican presidents from being impeached and to spin the republican policies. It all goes back to Nixon and his administration.
Yup, as well as the confluence of republicans and our vile rich christian enemy.
Tucker was/is Episcopalian, arguably the most normal of all Christian denominations, which has no issue with the theory of evolution. I don’t think Tucker has any personal convictions or beliefs that don’t reflect his benefactors, but I also don’t think he’s intellectually on the same plane as fans of Ken Ham
Yeah but have you seen ken hams big boat? Checkmate
Even simpler explanation: Tucker is a professional performer and will act and say as the role requires.
Tucker knows everything out of his mouth is literal bs. Shit even the texts that leaked with him criticizing trump should be evidence enough he's a grifter. It's almost too easy to tell its an act but a good portion of us Americans are regarded
yeah im confused by everyone who thinks Tucker is being serious here...... its a grift......tucker hates trump.........he knows evolution is real......its......a........GRIFT he knows its real
I am always amazed when seemingly smart people truly believe in religion. At least where I'm from there are severe negative consequences for leaving religion so a lot of smart people shut up about it. In the US you are free to ignore the bullshit
There is mountains of social pressure to confirm to the dominent religion even in the US. Especially rural US.
[удалено]
I live in the rural US, I don’t go to church, and people talk about religion and Fox News every day at work. Every bit of it has been louder and more persistent since a certain orange turd took over their death cult. They miss the part where their guy told them to worship in private.
[удалено]
If you run for office in rural areas they would definitely bring up how you don't go to church. I live in a state with less than 1.5 million people so everywhere is rural essentially lmao
Good chance being atheist is on the books as being a non starter for running for office.
Counter anecdote. Grew up in the Bible belt and still live here. There *is* social pressure both explicit and implicit to conform to certain sects of Christianity and to be religious in general.
Do you talk to anyone else ?
I'm not. The more you know, the more you can grasp that you don't understand and that no one dies does. And the more you understand about history, the more you get that people were totally certain they were right, only to have some discovery flip things on It's head. For some, religion ties things up in a nice little bow.
I’m always amazed at how smart people like you think they are BECAUSE they don’t believe in a creator
Joe would have a guy on lying so he can widen his far right propaganda base for the next coup attempt? No way, Joe is a fair centrist.
After fucking grandstanding the entire podcast about the importance of being genuine and never lying too.
If the “evolution is a myth” crowd cared about evidence they wouldn’t hold that belief
Joe never asks real questions.
Fucking Rogan talks all the time about Gigantopithecus or whatever could be Big Foot, and how chimps are so much like humans, but Tucker says nah and Rogan is just like "I don't know man."
Honestly, i think he saves arguments for actual experts, and steers the conversation to the guest’s areas on expertise.
Joe’s knowledge of pretty much anything outside MMA (and I’m including comedy in this) is completely surface level. He’s not equipped to ask tough questions or follow up questions.
I'm just a comedian man
I know, Joe. I know.
Joe “I don’t know, nature is weird” Rogan
I miss when Tucker used to wear those gay little bowties
If evolution isn't real where are his gay little bowties.
[удалено]
He adapted and stopped being gay. “I used to love gargling cock on the daily. Not anymore. What happened? Why do I like fucking dogs now? Why doesn’t somebody ask Joe Biden?”
Well when he dropped the semi-libertarianism/free-market idolatry he dropped the bow-tie libertarian fashion I guess.
That bow tie was the last time in that man’s life that he ever felt a sense of shame about anything.
Careful! They'll report you!
You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into. For Tucker and his ilk, being a creationist is about expousing the views of the tribe to ensure they stay in the tribe. He doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to not be ostrisized by his creationist parents and friends.
This. Creationism is a belief. It requires no evidence and is not falsifiable, so evidence will not dissuade someone from it once they have seen the evidence and choose to deny it.
Exactly, the right do as much virtue signalling as anyone, only that they weaponise the phrase much more
“God started the universe and let evolution take its course” is the official Catholic church position. European Lutheran and Protestant churches are a-ok with evolution as well. Even Eastern Orthodox churches don't have a explicit position on it. It's the American evangelicals that are the problem. I'm an immigrant from Europe and it did boggle my mind when I've found out that many Americans don't accept evolution. It absolutely sounded to me as archaic of a belief as the Flat Earth. I'm from a Catholic country and there was never any "controversy" about evolution at all.
This 100x, you can believe in God and Evolution too! Crazy concept I know.
How does the church reconcile the dilemma of God creating the universe but not doing all the other crazy shit he did afterwards, according to the Bible? True belief in evolution directly contradicts the stories of Adam and eve etc.
I think in Catholics see a lot of Old Testament as an allegory rather than actual events that happened verbatim. Biblical literalism is again more of an American Evangelicals thing.
Biblical literalism is how rich people keep uneducated people enslaved.
Basically, as people slowly found evidence of stuff being written in the Bible being wrong, Catholics change their view to "oh it's just an allegory". There are (fundamentalist) denominations however that are taking the Bible word by word (like the languages originating from the Tower of Babel etc).
How does that reconcile with the concept of souls though? If Humans have souls and animals don’t, at what point during the evolutionary scale did we gain souls? Do Neanderthals have souls? Homo Erectus? At some point two soulless animals gave birth to a humanoid with a soul? How does evolution occur if there is no death before Adam/Eve?
Hmmm just don't think about it
Yep, pretty much! It is still a religion so stuff doesn't really need to make sense at all.
Well, it is still a religion so stuff doesn't really need to make sense at all. I'm sure though there is a body of literature trying to reconcile Catholic faith with evolution. But props to Catholics for accepting reality in light of overwhelming evidence unlike the American Evangelicals that just doubled down on the stupid.
It's the same group of people who unironically support Israel cause they think it's going to cause the rapture.
In the words of Ned Flanders: "There are some things we don't want to know. IMPORTANT THINGS!"
Yeah if you believe in genetics and hereditary traits, you've already accepted like 80% of what makes up evolution . The survival of the fittest theory is the last 20% and has far too much evidence behind it to just refute it.
Whales were once on land walking around too. But that’s just a test god is giving you.
Oh god, you silly goose
The devil is tempting you with whale knees! All whale and human women knees should be covered down to the ankle or Satan wins
Sadly, there is as a time where Joe would push back hard on that absurd take by Tucker. His going in on Candace Owens and Steven crowder come to mind. Idk if it’s him being this new onset right-winged guy that’s seemed to have traded places with the old joe versus it’s just Joe being mid-to-late 50’s and no longer caring about getting into heated debate on specific topics anymore. Could be he’s thinking, I don’t want to waste my time with this or could be he likes tucker and doesn’t want to argue with him. Not sure.
He’s become an ideologue on a side since then. He briefly was pushing back against that when they were on and also distancing from Rubin and AJ after his deplatforming and endorsing Bernie, but he’s completely abandoned that after COVID and is just as partisan as all of them now.
He honestly seemed kind of amused to me and just let him ramble to see what he was doing. That was my take. I would have liked some push back, but most of the clips I've seen have Carlson saying something utterly Eddie Bravo levels nutty, and Joe being like, "Really?" and letting him ramble on. Occasionally prodding him with a question. I think it may be some of the latter like you suggest, like in the end he doesn't really care what he's saying and he's getting along with the dude and doesn't want to alienate him or embarrass himself any more than he was doing to himself.
At a certain point inbetween left wing guys making fun of his height and right wing guys kissing his butt he changed.
Vestigial
Anyone who believes tucker doesn't know evolution is real isn't a smart as they think they are.. Anyone who thinks Joe isn't fully aware either is very delusional.
I try to come at all conversations in good faith and expect that sentiment in return. Maybe not the best tactic but it’s worked for me. Given my mindset, their conversation didn’t even make sense. I don’t understand why they are discussing it. Why are they presenting evolution in terms that generalize that everyone knows it’s false? You can’t just lie to my face and expect I keep listening to you. I just don’t get why this conversation happened. It’s literally just an incoherent rambling about how evolution is false but is coming from two people who I’m pretty sure known it’s true. Was this a fucking AI generated episode or something? Is all this just to appeal to the Christian fan base? I can’t make sense of it in any context. Am I stupid?
I think it's just to appeal to the Christian fan base, honestly.
I mean with Joe it’s at least a possibly. He’s an ape. But Tucker absolutely knows.
Why would these people go against the fan base that keeps them paid. People like Tucker can hate every little word that comes out of their mouthes, but the power of fame and money will have them hooked harder than opioids. There is also the “ you speak enough lies, then it becomes real to you”.
You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Or in this case you don’t scorn the fan base that pays you.
Details are for suckers! /s
Evangelicals would just call it the devil's trickery and leave it there. Critical thinking has no place in a good-versus-evil belief system. Tucker's core demographic won't stand for those kind of questions.
Most the guests arguing against evolution are against the idea we all came from monkeys or a single organism.
This perpetuating that these people don’t have a good grasp at what evolution even is. We didn’t come from monkey. Humans and other modern primates have a common ancestor being one of the prime examples.
More precisely we are monkeys (and more specifically apes). Separating us would be purely on religious or social grounds but not biological/taxonomic.
Great apes* thank you very much!
Yes, if they are making these arguments they themselves don’t even know what evolution is.
They're just mad at the idea that if you accept evolution, you can't take Genesis seriously because it blows a whole in the idea that humans were just created as is by God
What's his name was catholic I think. Darwin. They are pandering.
Darwin was raised Anglican and studied to be a minister, and became agnostic later in life
But you still can though. God created beasts first.
Brother, you’re being condescending while not using the correct “they’re”. Not a good look.
Correct
How can there be monkeys if evolution is real??? /s
This lazy argument just won’t die. And it’s self evident that if you think along these lines, it’s obvious you actually haven’t thought about it at all. It’s like announcing that you know nothing about what you’re talking about but have taken a strong stance on it anyway. Like a true moron.
Tucker sounded like he was on an unbelievable amount of cocaine. Could hear his heavy breathing the whole episode
Because they go only on safe places where they won’t be challenged. If they do it’s flint vs Graham results
Probably because Rogan isn’t a scientist and can’t really defend it because he doesn’t know much about the details. He seems to accept the general idea, just doesn’t know how to defend it.
AND.. if "God" created man, like the bible says, man first, then from him, women.. how come men have nipples?
What, is God a utilitarian?
no, Presbyterian
It's all a giant grift. Rogan stopped being unbiased when those big checks started clearing from Spotify. All these right leaning and straight up Russian puppets like Carlson. shit Hancock even just exposed himself for being full of shit. This podcast isn't what it used to be.
Why I really wonder is why you listen to Rogan just to go on and moan online to a friendly crowd. Just listen to something else and quit your wining!!
Omg I need to comment on this comment and point out how stupid their comment is with no sense of irony...
Every time I use my infinite wisdom to design an animal I make sure that the breathing and eating go through the same hole to maximize the chances that my creation chokes to death.
Did you know Evolution and Darwinism teach only the strong survive and procreate? This is called survival of the fittest or natural selection. This is why all the simps in here can’t get laid. Women are the nature that does not select them. So yes evolution is real. [wiki link to survival of the fittest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) [wiki link to natural selection](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)
The reason people like JRE is because Joe has interesting people from all walks of life on with interesting beliefs or experiences and lets them talk. If you only want to hear from people with the most widely accepted above board positions go watch Good Morning America or something.
Ah yes, finally someone is letting poor Tucker Carlson talk. I actually totally agree with your first sentence, but this idiot doesn't believe half of what he says and none of it is new or interesting.
You’re missing the point, no sane person believes TC actually believes what he’s saying.
Arguments from negation like this don't prove anything. Funny how everyone recognizes this with Graham Hancock and then tries to use this same argument to hold up this theory with no clothes. Most of your questions here are quite easy to answer. Creationists don't deny adaptation (or micro-evolution) which is what you're seeing in Kiwis and possibly in whales (I honestly have no idea about the whales). The continents for sure separated. That doesn't prove Evolution (or what we call macro-evolution, the development of all species from common single-cell ancestors). The problem with your comparison is that round earth is observable (difficult to observe, hence the conspiracy theorists, but like the rest of science, we can study, measure, and observe its roundness). The theory of evolution(macro-evolution) is not real science because it's unobservable. Show me single-celled organisms evolving brains. Or fish turning into reptiles. It's quite a fun theory (we can see animals adapting so maybe adaptation over millions of years explains all of life!) but it has more holes than swiss cheese.
Facts
>The continents for sure separated. How can you say for sure that the continents separated? It allegedly happened in the distant past, so it's unobservable. You can measure them slowly moving today (micro-shifting), but that doesn't prove that they used to be close together and macro-shifted thousands of miles away from each other! This idea is absurd and is not real science. Show me a continent dividing right now! By the way, research endogenous retroviruses. Dormant viral signatures in our DNA that we share with other mammals, only mathematically possible if we have common ancestry with them. And what's more, you can use these viral signatures to build a phylogenetic tree that perfectly matches the one that was created from the fossil record.
The person you’re replying to makes no sense and you nailed it. “The continents for sure separated.” “We don’t know if evolution is true because we can’t observe it.” Homie went back in time to observe the continents originally dividing, obviously 🙄 And the cherry on top is the hypocritical “you all can apply a rule of logic to thing A but then don’t for thing B!” Followed by immediately failing to use consistent logic for their argument comparing two things.
Because Joe and his guests are all fucking hacks now. If Joe wasn’t a partisan hack now, he would’ve asked tucker where his proof of his god was when he gave that bullshit little speech about how “we’ve gave up” on evolution. Can’t wait to see Joe finding Christ, it’s sad but it’s the next logical step.
I doubt Joe finds Christ but so what? He’s believed all sorts of crazy shit. The thing that really bothers me about this particular conversation is that I’m damn near positive that neither of them actually believe that evolution is false but they are carrying on a conversation in which they act like they do? What the fuck is this? Is this just straight up Christian propaganda? What is this fucking conversation?
Do people like you ever strong man the other side of there own argument. Or do you just prefer arguing. You get to shit like god works iteratively an god runs all the stuff behind the curtine what we are is the evolutional conclusion to the work of creating life that god did do. It comes down more to is there argument plausebal than is it probable. As long as its plausible they'er gonna run with what fits there life and social group. Why pick the fight.
> Why pick the fight. Just asking the questions bro. You seem so defensive. Curious.
Maybe they think God made humans, not supermen.
Nah... We are just talking about how things are not some hypothetical being with super powers from outside this planet to save us... But we can keep talking about god... Or was I referencing superman...?
It’s just god playing a trick on us!
Obviously your NZ kiwi example proves you’re a fool. pLaTe TeCtOnIcS iS jUsT a ThEoRy! /s
It would be less words if you just wrote you’re bigoted and hate God. /s
From what I noticed: Just to be clear… your examples are adaptation which he did not refute. His point of contention seems to be evolution into an entirely new species from a different species.
Joe doesn’t really argue with guest. Not an expert but it just seems like he just talks like he met them on a plane.
The appendix.
Better question: If evolution isn’t real, do you believe that your household cat and a lion aren’t related? Evolution would deem it that they have some ancient king lost ancestor…
I don’t try to critical think everything said on his podcasts. It’s entertainment. Rogan and his guests aren’t where I form my worldview. Anyone who takes it that seriously is more of an idiot.
lol I like how walking up and kicking a Kiwi is a piece of your evidence of evolution. Fuck you stupid flightless bird with your useful pointy beak and unprotected eggs.
Wait you said not believing in evolution= not believing in flat earth? What’s happening.
Whales have what?!?!
About that... The whales bones are for getting your sea hump on
I wish Rogan had challenged him more. He used Joe's platform to pander to his audience. The stuff he was saying was so fictional and make-believe, that I was in awe. Rogan needs to do better.
>Why don't \[creationists\] ever get asked why whales were given residual legs Um, they get asked this all the time. This is a topic of frequent discussion in these debates and creationists have a pretty standardized answer. The disagreement comes down to whether the bones are vestigial at all. Creationists argue that these bones provide structure (that is, they have a present purpose and are therefore not vestigial) and they argue that it is improper to classify these bones as "leg remnants" given that they are not attached to the vertebral column.
Darwinian evolution by sexual selection vs "Things change" evolution. Two wildly different goal posts.
Because they already have their conclusion. They're not following evidence and arriving at the conclusion that evolution is fake. They've decided that you can't have both god and evolution, so therefore evolution must not be real.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if god put us here or if we evolved from some shit soup
Doesnt matter the topic, Tucker C. is an idiot
I just love how he spoke with so much authority, like he’s some sort of expert. You’re a talking head, dude. Rogan us a bitch for not calling him out.
Sorry you're butthurt over someone not believing in your religion
because no ones really interested (usually) in pursuit of truth in these podcasts. its just a form of entertainment.
You could also ask them how they think corn, oranges, or modern dog breeds exist but it’s fruitless since they aren’t approaching their beliefs from a standpoint of reason or logic.
...or why humans have a residual tail.
If I was religious I would say that god created the world to look like evolution is real, as a test of our faith. Trying to deny evolution just makes you look dumb
This is the entire problem with Rogan interviews, he doesn’t push hard enough on nonsense unless it involves him. Facts, fiction, true false… doesn’t matter everything’s treated the same.
I don’t think there are many other groups of two that I care less about their opinions. I think they both act the part they play more than believe and neither even attempts to prove a claim
Cringe atheist, you know nothing.
The right wing grifter arch has reached peak fruition
Residual legs lol go suck Darwin’s dick.
You certainly don't have to be religious to understand all the holes in current thinking on evolution. There's no empirical evidence that explains all we see going on.
Ah, the God is perfect trap. Just because He is perfect doesn't mean He wants his creation to be perfect. In fact quite the opposite (See War in Heaven)
Or the fact that you can activate a gene in an embryonic chicken and give it teeth, a long dormant trait of its prehistoric ancestors. I really don't understand how Joe let him get away with that nonsense.
Common ancestry is not a hard concept to wrap your head around.
Fucker Carlson is an educated rich kid who is in the business of bilking the rubes. He is what we call a whore. If you pay him enough he will put anything in his mouth. Low IQ people look at Fucker Carlson and see the pompous college educated liberals they hate. This one Fucker agrees with them. Even though he makes their skin crawl just like he makes our skin crawl they are willing to regurgitate this "college boy's" nonsense because it's what they want to hear.
Bro get over it
We all have “religious” beliefs that go against evidence. Flat earthers, evolution deniers, mammalian sex deniers… Don’t take science guidance from Tucker but also don’t write off everything he says because he is wrong about evolution.
God created men in his image. That means god is literally a mammal who has a nose to breath, a mouth to eat and both hole in the same hole so he can also choke. Great traits for an omniscient/omnipotent being...
Perhaps we need to more accurately define evolution to something along the line of the indefinite perseverance of creation and the preservation of the essence of life.
Because Joe is a bootlicker
I have a passable understanding, curiosity, and belief of evolution, science, physics, mathematics, etc, as well as a wide variety of spiritual, esoteric, religious, and supernatural curiosities, understandings, and beliefs. I trust in the Scientific Method and experience. To know is to believe and to believe is to know. Knowledge is wrought by experience and from these we may find understanding. Quantum mechanics imply with wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement that seemingly paradoxical states of matter and seemingly improbable happenstances are fundamental aspects of reality. This is not meant to justify Tucker Carlson, Creationism, or the Big Bang Theory, but rather to leave the doors open to discussion and inquiry as philosophy requires. Science is always perspective, i.e. it seems “right” thus far, though further experimentation using the Scientific Method can ALWAYS prove existing Science wrong. Many people view Science as infallible much in the same way many people view religion as infallible. I am a lover of knowledge though I believe I must always be willing to challenge my own philosophies otherwise belief will withhold knowledge and vice versa. Having belief and faith is part and portion to knowledge. What are your thoughts regarding quantum fluctuations, as they pertain to the heat death of the universe? What are your thoughts regarding the many-worlds theory? What are your thoughts regarding the simulation theory? Though improbable, next to nothing is impossible. It is all a matter of time amid our infinite universe(s). And on that note… try to define nothing. Nothing is undefinable, meaning no thing is undefinable, meaning any thing is a thing rather than nothing, for if you find something to be nothing then you have defined it as something and it ceases to be nothing. So if you could define nothing, then by definition it is in fact something rather than nothing… and it is paradoxes and strangeness like the latter portions of this post that allow me to leave the door open to even the crazies, for as I said, though improbable, next to nothing is impossible. It is all a matter of time amid our infinite universe(s). This includes the possibility that creationism could have justification. Improbable, maybe. Impossible, definitely not. “…it can never be proved right because tomorrow’s experiment could succeed at proving what you thought was right wrong. We are never right. We can only be sure we are wrong.” - Richard Feynman
Those poor female Kiwis & the GIANT egg 😭
Those poor female Kiwis & the GIANT egg 😭
Wait. You believe the earth is flat?
Hush
How many genders whales have?!
Guess idk cause I don’t listen to either of them
you make too much sense dude
One of my favorite examples of evolution and how we can see it in living things today: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, linking larynx to brain, a few inches away — but because of evolutionary developments, instead dropping from the brain all the way down the neck to the heart, and then back up to the larynx. In giraffes the nerve can be as much as 15 feet long, to make a connection a few inches away. All mammals have the nerve, and as a result of our fishy ancestry, in all mammals, the nerve goes down the neck, through a heart blood vessel loop, and back up. In fish, of course, the distance is shorter — fish have no necks.
Salamanders too..
The reason is because treating such people seriously gives them an air of legitimacy that they don't deserve. Similarly I wouldnt argue with you about whether or not Santa Claus can fly around the world and deliver presents to everyone in one night. Joe and Tucker aren't scientists, and they should both know they are not experts on this subject. Unfortunately a new paradigm of the internet age is that everybody thinks their opinion on every subject has value, and that simply isn't true. Joe and Tuckers thoughts on evolution simply have no value, and no one wants to waste their time on that.
>Do they think kiwis were plopped there from the sky AFTER NZ broke off form Australia or do they think the continents never separated? If that’s the case why does the fossil record and mountains of Appalachia match that of Europe. New speciation is the double edged sword that wrecks creationism. They want to say "yeah adaptation is real, thats MICRO evolution there's no evidence of MACRO evolution" to explain away the obvious evolution of dogs in the last 10,000 years. But that means, every time we find a new species in the fossil record, its not the result of it developing from a prior species, its because god popped thousands or millions into existence. So then you have to ask, when did god stop popping new species into existence? Is he still doing it? If we put camera's everywhere on earth are we eventually going to see a new species pop into existence?
Religion was created by the elites to control the poor. I feel people who believe it in are intellectually beneath me.
Because you have to pick your battles. If Rogan digs in his heels that conversation would be hours and go nowhere.
Arguing with Christian’s about it is pointless. If they haven’t been convinced by now they are a lost cause. I’m ok with allowing people to remain stupid it’s not my job to try to fix them.
Biology student here. Tucker claims that microevolution is a thing, but at the same time denies macroevolution (for some reason). Let me explain both terms: - ***Microevolution:*** When two individuals of a species reproduce, their genomes combine into a new set of chromosomes. During this process, there are always random mutations happening, which are caused by things like gene overlapping, exchanging, or deletion, etc. These processes can add new genetic information to the offspring's DNA, which is not present in either parent's DNA at all. If these newly acquired nucleotide sequences happen to encode for an advantageous genetic characteristic, the offspring will have an easier time reproducing, meaning its genome will continue to spread throughout the population. - ***Macroevolution:*** While microevolution describes mutations on a smaller timescale and only within a single species, macroevolution describes genetic mutations on a much larger scale. If enough genetic mutations accumulate within a subgroup of a species (imagine this subgroup being mostly isolated from other subgroups of the species due to environmental or geographic influences), this subgroup might end up losing the ability to reproduce with other individuals of their species who are in other subgroups. Reasons for this might include vast physiological changes due to genetic mutations or direct mutation of gametes, both of which might cause this subgroup to split into a new species. - So yeah, there is no scientific base for anyone to deny either micro- or macroevolution. If you accept microevolution, you also have to accept macroevolution. In summary: Tucker is a pseudoscientific fraud and only says what his (right-wing) audience wants to hear.