Tucker Carlson is a Creationist Tool
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- Apart from science deniers, I also can't stand far right political pundits who do nothing but stoke the fire of conspiracy and deteriorate the social fabric. You know, douchebags like Tucker Carlson. Tuckdawg recently went on Joe Rogan's podcast and spewed a bunch of creationist bullshit, so I thought it would be fun to crap all over it. Doesn't that sound nice?
Watch my other debunks/debates/discussions: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Calling Tucker Carlson a tool is disrespectful to tools. Tools are useful and serve a purpose
Just to play devils advocate, I imagine a lot of powerful right wingers think he's a useful idiot?
@@MrRancidity Well Putin used him like a tool certainly and it had real impact on people. There are legitimately people in the US who think Putin is a strong leader and they advocate for the same in the US.
I feel like that’s the point of calling him a creationist tool? He is a tool used by creationists to push their agenda. Not all tools are for good purposes. I think this joke works better when the insult is “pig” or something.
And tools are created, Tucker was not.
There are tools that serve bad purposes. Tucker's one of them.
"I believe in adaptation, not evolution."
"I believe in stairs, not staircases."
👏
sure eyeglasses exist, but I'm not foolish enough to believe in contact lenses
@-Me_ a good effort, first comment still wins atm
Adapting is a fact of life, and we've all experienced it. Adapting multiple times, especially over a long period, is called evolution. Someone needs to give Tucker a dictionary. Or a first grade education.
I think they don't believe organisms can change *THIS* much. Still stupid, but yk
Creationist on evolution: WHERE"S THE PROOF, THE EVIDENCE, THE TESTING
Creationist on God: Have faith.
And is as unscientific to also reject the arguement to simply "lack of evidence" is a flawed arguement
@@hasannawaz228no it’s not… rejecting an argument isn’t necessarily saying it’s false.. it’s just not being able to just “accept” as true because… well.. why would you accept as true if there’s lack of evidence? That’s just another concept the right wing religious science deniers can’t grasp is that the rejection of an argument isn’t saying it’s false… it’s just NOT accepting as true yet.. This stuffs so easy. So no, it’s not “unscientific” to reject something based on lack of evidence. The only other alternative would be to accept it based on lack of evidence which is possibly THE dumbest thing you can do
Step 3: Creationists completely ignore any provided proof, evidence etc.
@@hasannawaz228 Eherm, an argument from incredulity or requesting to prove a negative are intellectual bankrupcy and that's all that believers can invoke...
A creationist saying "evolution is too complex to happen at macro scale because I say so, why don't you prove that god doesn't exist first and then I'll believe an alternative reason you suggest" it's moronic
@@yakopc6600 well the arguement of god requires both sides to prove claims hence why no scientists will entertain it properly as there's no way to measure a abstract being you can throw fancy words and phrases towards me to make it sound like you know what your on about but both sides need a claim this is why philosophy exists
If Carlson was encountering someone like Elon Musk and Musk said "of course evolution is real" Carlson would immediately backpedal and say something like "no I mean Darwinian evolution. Of course evolution is real it's just different from what Darwin said. Darwin got things wrong too."
It's sniveling spineless equivocation that he accuses everyone else of doing.
@@SimrealismLet your participation in it end. 😆
Feigning superiority 🥱
My husband and I are expecting!!!
@@Simrealism it's an observation based on his behavior to simply adhere to and parrot those "above" him, that's what that is
Congrats, you just figured out a political media pundits job.
@@Simrealism You mean that thing Tucker did constantly on his failed opinion show?
"This infernal species"? And what're you, Posadis? A Nephilim baby?
In the podcast he says Darwin’s theory of evolution wrong, he was already talking about Darwin’s theory of evolution
As a girl who goes to school, how dare you suggest I giggle like that!
Exactly! Say rather that Tucker laughs like the ape he is.
lets see your giggle then.
You gotta crazy laugh don't you? Tucker not you. Crap this isn't RM Brown. Toilets
Yeah it's a psychopathic laugh. That's the correct term for it.
I stopped watching the video at this point, as it is clearly offensive to giggly schoolgirls.
You know what there is no evidence of? Creationism.
Creationism is just a theory!
@@alexalke1417
It’s not even a theory.
Not even a hypothesis. Falsifiability sucks bro
That's in the Bible! Praise God. *Yoko Ono Noises*
Sorry, force of habit.
B-but my holy scriptures!!!
This interview was like watching a snake try to convince a gorilla of the existence of fairies
When a comment that's meant to be a metaphor ends up being literal
Underrated comment😂
“Oh no fossil record? How bout THE FOSSIL RECORD” 😂😂😂
@@jonnyblaze2692How are readers thousands of years later supposed to tell if it’s a metaphor? And a metaphor for what? Aren’t religious metaphors especially tricky because they may be made to say various things?
@@dwightfitch3120 thousands of years what the hell you talking about? The post I replied to was 3 weeks ago. TH-cam user came up with a metaphor for the interview. I just commented that it seemed more real than a metaphor considering who was involved and the topic. Rogan the gorilla Tucker the snake
I'm an 8th grader and I can literally disprove all of this. how is this guy less logical than a middle schooler.
A lifetime of effort to avoid learning and to get paid for lying.
This is why compulsory schooling is needed, so you don't turn into MotherTucker.
@@archapmangcmggoober
Because he's trying to push a narrative that aligns with his religious beliefs.
🧢
He's the typical Republican.
A judge accepted the argument that he cannot be believed by decently reasonable people, that's how much of a tool he is.
And that was the only argument his lawyers could provide for him because that's all they had to work with.
"Please forgive my client, your honor, because he's a shite-talking idiot."
@dtcdtc8328 nice attempt at deflection
@@dtcdtc8328cope
The term "decently reasonable" coming from a judge is a loaded term. What is reasonable is only reasonable if we agree with it.
@@dtcdtc8328There's a key difference between the rulinga though. The ruling on Maddow found that she was using hyperbole because her segment was a comedic talk show, not a news source of any kind. She never broke news, only repeated other news in an exaggerated way. She has no problem with this because she does not pretend to be a journalist/newsbreaker. Tucker didn't get this same treatment, instead having to rely on the claim that "his reputation" was such that nobody reasonable would believe him. It's nothing to do with the context of his show, they're basically saying the ruling for him is a personal one given his reputation of insane and false statements. He isn't exaggerating a fact for comedic effect. He just straight up lies sometimes.
Remember that Tucker said that ''every time I get cornered in a debate, I lie'.
Mindless, spineless, soulless husk spewing any talking point that will make him money.
That's what all liars for Jesus do.
Typical science-denier.
Really? I mean I have no doubt that he does, but that he'd actually say out loud?
Link, or it didn't happen
I think that he knows he is lying. He is playing a part for money and power. This is just the character he created.
"Evolution is false" =
"I'm religious and didn't finish high school"
@@StudSnob OK, I accept your challenge. Name some scientists who don't accept evolution as a fact.
PREDICTION: You either won't or you'll name someone who's profoundly religious.
GO!!! 🤣
@@StudSnob So FEW.
Fewer than a thousand people were willing to sign a statement expressing mild doubt. And to get even that number, they had to LIE to the signatories about the statement AND had to include non-biologists and also non-scientists.
Meanwhile, Project Steve got far more signatories just among the ~1% of people named some variant of Steve, no lies required, no non-experts required.
Cretinism is a lunatic fringe belief.
"We have to go in with humility........ the aliens are spiritual beings."
Same interview, same idiot
I went to med school and even there the religious people didn't believe in evolution. Scary stuff.
@@warren52nzYou're a cultist.
Your reply says it all.
"Name someone not in my cult and I'll claim they're in another cult"
Too many morons masquerading as people with a 10th grade reading level over here. How did I get recommended this video? Lmaoooo
Nitwits
I do not understand how people take Tucker Carlson seriously when he's the guy who complained about how the green mnm was no longer "sexy enough" on national television...
Not to mention his crazy laugh.
If I were his parents, I'd be demanding the money I spent on his education, back!
@@capt.bart.roberts4975 wdym education?
@@capt.bart.roberts4975 Yeah, it's like all those bribes to get him passing grades at [Entitled White Boys Only] prep school were utterly wasted.
As an european the interview with putin and the part about convenience stores was so fucking hilarious. How disconnected from reality is this guy? WOW RUSSIANS HAVE BREAD ... WOOOOAAAH
Damn, as a childless software developer myself, he's onto us. And I thought we could make the human race extinct without anyone noticing :(
Shuuuut uuuuup, we're meant to deny it.
I mean, I had a child as soon as I went into AI just to cover for it, apparently that didn't work as a distraction.
As a childless software developer myself, I was not aware of these plans. Did I miss a meeting? Perhaps it's because I'm not in California.
Don't worry guys, they'll just call anyone who believes that a conspiracy nut. There's always a flock of contrarians about every little detail on the Internet these days.
@@mikesimms1 No meeting, it's just the result of taking optimisation to its logical conclusion
My first thoughts when Tucker blurted out that evolution was still a theory, was pointing him at your "Why you should never say 'It is just a theory'" video.
Have you ever actually looked at the “theory” of evolution? If you put creation and evolution side by side and looked at both with a totally objective mind, creation is far more believable than evolution.
@@bretttrommler756 science is more believable than myths.
@@arcioko2142 not always. Science says that everything was created from nothing, I.e. the Big Bang. What’s more believable; “nothing” suddenly exploded and became everything… or a supreme being created everything we see?
@@bretttrommler756 Yeah sure, I can take an objective look at the Genesis account of creation.
Hmm, I see there's a contradiction in Genesis 1:2 about the Earth existing before the Sun, in contradiction with the astronomical theory of star and protoplanetary formation. I'm reading a passage in 1:6 about the sky forming from the ocean, contradicting atmospheric geophysics and Genesis 1:2 where the water has a surface? I'm reading a thermodynamic paradox in Genesis 1:11 about liquid water existing without a source of heat, at below freezing point? Now I'm reading a contradiction in Genesis 1:11 to the basic biology about plants functioning without sunlight? Now I'm reading in Genesis 1:12 about fruit trees functioning without animals present, which contradicting angiosperm botany?
How many contradictions are in this creation story?
Oh and what's this on the next page, in Genesis 2? A different account of the same event but with a contradictory order to the events of Genesis 1?
Two accounts of creation in the bible that contradict each other!?
An objective mind should have no trouble dismissing a creation story filled with contradictory and self-contradictory statements as false. But just in case you have to be spoonfed your epistemology through bible verses (it's Matthew 23:28 btw), rather than understand the Aristotleian laws of thought, here's what the laws of thought say about contradictions. The law of noncontradiction states that contradictory accounts cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. At least one of the accounts must be wrong.
Now let's look at evolution with an objective mind, a concept that requires just one more ingredient after you have accepted adaptation occurs like Comrade Tucker did in this video. One ingredient only - and that is time. Once you have adaptation and once you have time, evolution via genetic variability, is inevitable. Didn't even need to bring in natural selection (not that it doesn't occur), and we now have an explanation for the common descent of species, the appearance of transitional species, mass extinction events, the appearance of phenotypes, and an accepted theory that doesn't have to contradict the laws of physics or chemistry or biology or geology or history.
So what evidence do we find that the Earth is more than 6000 years old? An objective mind sees that evidence in the stars & the years that light takes to reach us. That mind sees it in the solar system and the age of meteorites and the planetary craters, sees it in archaeology in the caves of Lascaux. That objective mind sees evidence in nuclear physics with the half life of uranium-238 or carbon-14 or potassium-40, in hydrocarbon exploration, in geological rock formation, in the African savanna, in the comparative anatomy of animals, in the directly observed domestication of the banana and tomato.
So does my openly objective mind, accept the epistemologically sound evolutionary theory of life more than the contradiction-filled Genesis story and contradicts not just science, but also archeology, geography, history, logic and itself? My mind chooses the more parsimonious explanation.
It was 17 contradictions I counted in the Genesis account of creation.
@@bretttrommler756 evidence has a definition... one you clearly do not know.
Scientific evidence: "measurement, data, analysis, rigorous testing"
Tuckers evidence: "A book says a thing"
“A collection of texts that are extremely loosely correlated and compiled and edited by countless people says a bunch of things with zero evidence”
@@josephmother2659Tucker: A book and my modern, ideologically motivated literal interpretation of that book within a specific cultural context said this is true so it is true
'We know less now than they knew back then'. Only you Mr Carlson, it's only you :)
He isn't wrong about fox viewers
Is he referring to the time when Christians were burning each other at the stake?
Not that we aren't still ignorant, I'll give him that one.
Only maybe concerning the shape of the earth, that's quite a new one.
I've yet to find any evidence that there was any belief at the time that there was another stabber on the grassy knoll when Caesar was killed, so there is that.
@@jimb9063 It’s not that recent, it’s quite old actually, ancient really. Unless you’re talking about the belief in a flat Earth that is popular among the conspiracy theorists across the internet, then yes that is a recent development that has grown above what it originally was
@@MetastaticMaladies Yes, the second!
Edit. Would've made more sense if I'd ended with 'so there is that too'.
“Darwinist” lines of evidence: cladistic phylogenetics, fossils, DNA, etc.
Creationist evidence: “let there be…”
And "population genetics," which is basically what boosted the science of evolution into scientific stardom back in the early 1900s.
To be fair, none of that is Darwinian except the fossils.
To me, the Darwinian aspect of evolution is natural selection. His main discovery and contribution.
They have a book full of really disgusting, outdated bullshit that a child could debunk and that's all they need
I wouldn't even call it evidence because evidence exists in relation to a model. Creationism doesn't have a model. Magic does poof doesn't tell us anything.
Okay then, how about "Let there be cladistic phylogenetics, fossils, DNA, etc". How does that theory work for you
How does anyone take Tucker seriously? 🤦♂
"We understand so little." No, tucker, _you_ understand little.
This is something that pisses me off as a biomedic, they act as if we don't understand evolution or as if we don't have evidence of it, this shows a complete illiteracy on the subject because evolution theory has almost two centuries of research and evidence to back It up, so much that the whole field of modern biology is based in evolution.
Av yes and you're a genius I presume? 😅
@@AboveEmAllProduction You wrote, "Ah yes and you're a genius I presume?"
Did he say he was a genius? What does being a genius or not being one have to do with knowing that Carlson is full of horse-pucky in his remarks about evolution?
Everything Tucker stated - I mean, literally, every statement he made - displayed complete ignorance of any of the science.
So, did you have any actual point? Or not?
@@AboveEmAllProductionjackass
@@AboveEmAllProduction You don't need to be a genius to understand evolution, you only need a basic knowledge about biology, which tucker shows little of.
This answers the question that no one wanted answered - who can make Rogan sound smart and reasonable? Tucker.
Ouch! Bullseye
What false things has Joe Rogan said? I'm not stating you're wrong.
@@Maraien _"What false things has Joe Rogan said? I'm not stating you're wrong"_ I never said false, I said smart and reasonable. But if you look at all the false information that Joe entertains, you can easily claim he's also saying false things. His support of Hancock is one example or his continued support of dangerous medical misinformation including HIV isn't linked to AIDS. Is Joe spreading that false information on purpose? Or is he just a moron who has been fooled? Does it matter? He's insanely popular with a huge platform and that should demand he have responsibility for what he says or promotes. But since he appeals to the anti-woke crowd, he ends up bulletproof to responsibility.
Joe Rogan is reasonable stupid, Tucker Carlson is unreasonable stupid, so of course Rogan sounds smart in comparison
@@Maraien I believe Rogan is in good faith, he has that attitude of “I’m just asking questions,” unfortunately many of his questions are stupid. He has many questionable guests too.
Question: If Joe Rogan ever invited *you* to be on his podcast to discuss science, would you accept?
Yes
He would probably talk about fighting and been in shape and would try to push a macho sort of vibe as he has done in the past with guest’s that he doesn’t feel the smartest o coolest guy around. No hate on joe but someone needs to talk about that shit.
Rogan interviews people with interesting ideas, not people without interesting ideas
@@sarsaparillasunset3873 Science is interesting.
@@sarsaparillasunset3873 Rogan has invited hundreds of scientists who discuss science on the platform like Roger Penrose, Sam Harris, Brian Cox, etc. Science is interesting and Rogan knows that.
Man I have to tell my kids they don’t have a father since my husband is a software developer.
Not enough people are calling these tools out
I unironically agree Mr. Rick Sanchez from the hit Adult Swim television series Rick and Morty (no hate just having a laugh)
@curtis1905
I feel like it's more "not enough people are calling them out *correctly"*_ Great thing about Dave (one of them, anyway) is he doesn't use arguments or talking points people can worm their way out of by "agreeing to disagree" or such things without looking like their perspective has _little to _*_no_* basis in fact
@@ivoryas1696 I agree I just think he would reach more people of he wasn't so hostile to anyone who doesn't already know what he knows
@@spoon8754
The hostility isn't necessarily that bad to people who simply don't know and act in good faith.
But people who _clearly_ are ignorant or dishonest in making statements they say are "correct" relative to people who _aren't_ such, are being disrespectful by their nature, and so he throws it back at them.
I'd advocate for more patience but honestly... I feel like it's fine if some people go the harsh approach as long as we don't *_all_*
-Also... it's funny 💀-
@@spoon8754 or willing to consider things that he isn’t capable of.
The fact that Tucker Carlson has any kind of following is mindboggling
I assumed it was like a meme following. Like people just followed the bow tie guy John Stewart destroyed for laughs. The fact that old people take him serious is concerning and hilarious.
It's fairly small, all told. He was such a big draw for Fox prime time that they kept him on even though they had no ads to show on his slot, but eventually he became too much of a problem for even them so they dumped him. If people were truly invested in him, they would've turned wherever he went into the new megahit, but they didn't. Turns out the prime time Fox News slot is what makes a conservative pundit successful, not the other way around.
@@Nothingseen Sure, but he still has some following. And when he was on Fox and more popular he was already spewing garbage.
@@chlorophyllphile Oh yeah I agree. I watched Jon Stewart tell him to stop hurting America like 15 years ago and I thought "oh, dude's done for"
AND YET, here he still is! The conservative movement is beyond shame, and seems to take a measure of glee in being hated by most people. It's a real anti-social personality disorder type thing.
I think (sadly) he's more popular than we'd like to believe. e.g. he was ahead of the curve in being pro-Russia. The MAGA / QAnon nutters love him, which is probably about a quarter of the country.
As someone who codes for a living, I can confirm that having more children does make your code better, and these CHILDLESS software engineers are the reason we know less today than farmers 100 years ago!
Indeed, everyone knows that “quiverfull” parents are renowned for writing the very best code ever. It’s really amazing.
It doesn't, but if you allow more children in your code, it will work faster on a multi core CPU.
I love my parent-child inheritance in my code. Avoids Tucker Carlson type inefficiency.
@ScienceNow- Your wouldn't spot a joke even if someone commented the line for you in the source, would you?
@ScienceNow- It's a coding joke, please google Inheritance and Polymorphism.
You've just projected a lot of your insecurities though so thanks for sharing that.
He has the intellect of a 5th grader and giggles like a 5th grader too. A 5th grade girl, of course.
Tucker: "Well I have a theory!" no tucker, you dont have a theory, you have a hypothesis. A theory is the highest honor any scientific discovery can acheive, a hypothesis can be made in a 1st grade classroom.
In fairness to first graders, most of them know that a hypothesis is as-yet-unproven speculation. Tucker and his ilk think their "theory" is divine truth provided by the creator of the universe.
Also DUHH GOD DID IT is not a hypothesis
@@ProfessorDaveExplainscare to provide your reasoning?
@@yag-yet_another_gamer I'd argue that a key aspect of a hypothesis- or one that's useful, anyway- is falsifiability. If your "hypothesis" entails the existence of an eternal, omnipotent, nonphysical consciousness that exists somewhere beyond space and time, I'm not sure how you falsify that.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains wrote, "Also DUHH GOD DID IT is not a hypothesis."
You beat me to the punch here.
"Everyone knows that segregation was one of the b- Worst things that this country has done" - Tucker
And what makes it even better, is that segregation is far from the worst thing America has ever done (it still wasn’t a good thing though).
I was shocked to learn that Lincoln advocated for segregation and wanted to encourage blacks to return to Africa:
"On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met at the White House delegation of Black leaders to make his case for the voluntary emigration of African Americans to countries outside the U.S. “Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,” Lincoln told the delegation."
Intermarriage between the races and political equality were too much even for Lincoln - today we would label such views as white supremacist.
okay tucker is a bloke but that was obviously just him stumbling over his words. using that against him is unreasonable. everyone messes up their words sometimes.
@@tma2001Yeah, kinda wild how backwards progressivism was then. I try to focus on appreciating the steps taken back then that let us criticize them for being so small today.
@@tma2001 That’s why people today say that the founding fathers and hero’s of the revolution were white supremacist, yet they get shouted down at by others that worship them with no historical context and lots of bias. There is lots of propaganda about our history and the notable people in it.
No pushback on carlson from rogan. Increasingly disappointed with Joe. I find him unwatchable now.
SCIENCE: proof without certainty
CREATION(ISM?): certainty without proof
Either God created us or nothing created everything which is scientifically impossible... If you look at a building, how do you know someone built it? Because buildings don't build themselves.
@@TheWordImmanuel You are certain of this and have no proof.
@@tinyPaleBlueDotAnd so are you.
@@thstroyur No, I would be the opposite: having proof but not certainty.
@@tinyPaleBlueDot The proof being?
When someone becomes a "celebrity", they think they have the right to jump in the middle of any scientific issue and comment like a clown.
Everyone is entitled to contribute their opinion.
@@CATKYBNM Even on topics they very clearly and provably know nothing about?
@@JohnGardnerAlhadis I would say that if someone believes in a religion, they're entitled to argue how the world was created. Regardless of whether you beleive it to be inaccruate or not. There are credible scientists from cambridge that argue similar arguments (maybe a bit more structured). Why would gatekeeping bhuddist monks, hindus, christians, muslims etc from creation debates be beneficial? If people think Tucker doesn't have a leg to stand on and science is irrefutable then that's okay, but to gatekeep anyone with an opinion is wrong.
@@CATKYBNMif you want to have a scientific discussion about how people came to be, you need have evidence for your theory. People aren’t gatekeeping, they are simply ignoring theories that add no value to the discussion.
Drunk on the misguided feedback of their self importance.
Funny how nobody ever says the Oxygen Theory of Combustion is "just a theory".
"The theory of gravity is just a theo
r
r
r
y!!"
The ground definitely exists though.
Never mind the applied sciences. Music Theory is also "just a theory."
They would if they could monetize it
Along the lines of questioning Germ Theory.
Unsurprisingly, massive amounts of people still avoid washing their hands because they can’t see the microorganisms with their unaided eyes.
I'm sure the flat earthers Peter and Pete would call it "just a theory".
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool" - Voltaire
Le epic Reddit moment.
Except not everyone concedes the first religion was pagan (plus, I won't be taught cammaderie by a frog who rigged the lottery)
Great video! I always liked your zero nonsense, direct and sarcastic style, which reminds me Matt Dillahunty! ;) Deniers get harsh treatment they deserve, especially those who lie for the Discovery Institute. Mundane things like Italian and Latin playlists are superb as well!
Asking Tucker about evolution is like asking Tucker about journalism. He knows nothing about the subject.
Isn't he a journalist?
@@AboveEmAllProductionDid you ask that in the “I’m just asking” Tucker voice? Because objectively no he is not. He is a washed up bow-tie wearing ex cnn employee who also got fired from fox’s opinion show.
@@AboveEmAllProduction well-paid propagandist.
@@AboveEmAllProductionwhoosh
@@mikelxanadu Hahaha. No sir, the wooosh is on you
Calling Tucker a tool implies a function…
His function is to spread Russian propaganda and white christian nationalism
True, but don't forget that tools are used by others, not themselves
The function is to appeal to his in groups propaganda. Without people like him the doubt for creationism will increase and people will stop believing in it.
Though intuitively the evidences are different, in terms of structure and quality of evidence flat earth and evolution denial are equally ridiculous positions.
You could chalk this up to how the round earth is just way more intuitive to explain and understand. But even creationist believe in quantum physics despite the evidence and explanation for that science is all over the place. Many flat earthers even will appeal to quantum physics. Confirmation bias is more of a factor in my opinion
Without this function evolution denial becomes an equivalent position to flat earth
Look how divided the US is right now, are you really going to suggest he had no part to play in this?
Oh, he has a function. It’s terrible and detrimental to those who aren’t into his brand of fascism, but it’s a function.
Have you seen this science teacher in the UK who completly denies climate change in most of his videos, "Science Shorts" on TH-cam, telling kids studying for exams false information going against the exam specification.
I’m soooo grateful that I stumbled upon your channel!
Tucker: It's got electrolytes.
Joe: What are electrolytes? Do you even know??
Tucker: it's The thing Brawndo is made from.
Idiocracy for the win! 😂
Tucker, please read "I have no mouth and I must scream" and
"The final question"
As someone who was raised young earth creationist, your videos have been very helpful for me in my deconstruction. The debunks that target specific YEC arguments have helped me a lot with "un-learning" all the bs that was spewed at me my entire life.
I also learned Creationism as a kid. However, my parents allowed me to study real science on my own
Religion is 👎😫
@@kaudsiz Some religion that which makes the news. Plenty of devout Scientists supporting evolution.
There is irony in that these are on the Protestant side when in the early Protestant movement they would reject the creationist argument because they believed in Predestination . Especially the Calvinist movement. This was from Theology that realized over time that if you worshiped an all knowing, present everywhere and all powerful God that God could insure everything thing they wanted to happen at the moment of creation that God would not need to do anything after that point other than direct talk to leaders and have a Son.
Predestination in part what got the Catholic Church to switch sides to the Evolution side after the evidence for Evolution became overwhelming. That evolution is how god expressed god's will in the area.
Note under Predestination God can hear prayer and answer it at the moment of creation no need to modify things currently. Here is God is not limited by time a logical theologic thought.
Predestination fell out of favor over time as it meant your dammed to hell or to heaven when the Universe was created you don't actually have a choice it a very anti free will doctrine. Of course you were still expected to pray and follow all the teachings it just that what seamed to be a free will choice on your part to do so or not was illusionary.
It's fantastic that you've managed to crawl out of that shroud of ignorance your family pulled you into. For every one person who escapes it, there's probably a few who don't...
To give you a further perspective beyond the debunking of biblical literalism, i recommend reading some of Friedrich Nietzsches work. He does a lot of critiques against modern culture and Christian morality that are very thought-provoking.
Dude, Tucker is all the shitty things in one person.
Here is some data , Tucker went to Moscow, interviewed Putin (allowing Putin to ramble on about a delusional view of history (Kiev was a city when Moscow was still a swamp) ) , and then toured a grocery store and gushed about how cheap food was .
I can’t prove it , but he appears to be an asset of the FSB .
"It isn't a god because we made it," says the guy who believes in a totally man-made cloud daddy...
@@bean7039Considering the fact we have extensive evidence of something at least resembling the Big Bang Cosmological Model, then yes it sounds perfectly reasonable. That we don't know exactly what caused it yet is irrelevant. Once upon a time we thought a deity was responsible for rain and sacrificed people to it. Now we understand climate science. That science has not yet got a specific for explanation something doesn't mean it will never be explainable.
I don't think the Tucker even believes in THAT. It's just going to be a new and convenient pivot.
@@TheDarkSide11891 but that also doesn't mean we need to subscribe to mythology without any reason to believe it, either.
@@j0j0dartiste21 I'll say one thing - if the Tucker Carlson's of the world are right about the Biblical god, they are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise in the afterlife...
@@jhouck1969You, on the other hand, will be totally fine, of course...
It's crazy to see JOE ROGAN being the reasonable one for once
How is Rogan unreasonable ?
Y'all portray him as way more of an unreasonable idiot than he really is, he's a smart guy who listens to really varied perspectives
Give 3 examples of joe rogan being unreasonable.
I’m not a loyal Joe Rogan fan by any means, but I’ve seen a ton of clips during my times of mindless scrolling on TH-cam. I’ve never seen anything from him that really screams unreasonable, I’ve heard some of his opinions that I completely disagree with, but he honestly seems quite open minded if given good reason or evidence.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v I don't need to give you three. Just one. I am taking the kitchen sink approach to unreasonableness. I see one instance of unreasonableness, and I throw out the whole show.
And I refuse to give even one, until you watch 14 hours of Professor Dave content
Saying adaptation exists but evolution is fake is pretty exactly like a flat earther saying that bouyancy is real but gravity is fake (although technically reversed)
It's like saying childhood is real and godzilla is not
I'd love to see more of it. What are the chances of you and Tuck on the same show?
Saying that you believe in adaptation, but not evolution is like saying that addition is real, but multiplication is not.
It seems to be a product of habitually small thinking. Inches? Sure! But miles? No way!
Yeah I believe 2+2 equals 4! But 2+2+2+2+2 equals 10 is crazyy!
@@0okaminoRight! I always thought the whole "microevolution" argument was the stupidest argument among the myriad of stupid arguments science deniers use.
"You can have small adaptation, but not major changes leading to speciation"? Guess what happens when you take something, and then make small changes to it for a hundred million years? You get a damn different result than what you started with, that's for sure. Many, many small changes make for a big difference in the "end" result.
It's like believing in adolescence but not 200' tall giants
@@cosmictreason2242 Who claims that there were ever 200' tall giants?
bro i dont know how u retain ur sanity dealing with ppl like this. w dave
he's not dealing with ppl like this. tucker doesn't even know who this guy is, so, there's no dealing of any kind, on anyone's part. he seeks out ppl minding their own business, and then attacks them, in this case he goes after one of rare anti imperialist voices in the media, up until recently, the only anti imperialist voice in the mainstream media, and attacks him on the grounds that he, who never claimed to know jack about science, doesn't know jack about science. this reminds me of those right wing guys (who differ from "dave" only in being aware that they are right wing) who whine about r-word left, cause some rando had a meltdown somewhere in public. both are just trying to cash in on the outrage and 5 minutes of hate, w/o either contributing to science, I mean, if this is your first time hearing about evolution, I stand corrected, but I'm pretty sure you haven't learned anything from this video, or in case of those guys contributing jack to improving lives of ordinary people, cause instead of attacking that f-ist in white house, they go after ordinary ppl who hold no power and no one asks them about anything. no one asks tucker about science either. no one watches tucker for science either, I've also never heard anyone say that tucker is an intelligent man. so what in the world was the purpose of this stupid video?
you ppl need to learn about communism, and start uniting instead of hating. not "dave", he's flat out f-ist, he literally made this video to showcase how much he hates tucker, but you know, ppl like you
He sings himself that theme song of his before he starts. It gives him the strength of 10 men.
Fr fr professor Dave 💪😎
fr
His name is MR. FARINA!
I'm new here and confused on why the reference clips are always playing on a Mac 😂😂
Because they're the best duhh
What the fuck difference does it make?
Ok, your editing of Tucker's schoolgirl laugh is now going to haunt my dreams
Let's look at dogs? Did he order the Kent Hovind DVD's?
@bpa5721 My dog has been struggling with differential calculus. Must be something in the food he eats.
@@LetsCook64 let me know if he gets the hang of it, cause i also struggle with it
Lucky you. My dog has trouble having any thought at all. Very much a "No thoughts, head empty" type of dog.
It's the same talking points they all have to use because they're running out of justifications for their made-up imaginary and delusional nonsense.
Just being introspective here, but it saddens me to know that I have uttered these exact talking points with sincerity.
Thank you to Professor Dave and other Science communicators for teaching me how stupid Christianity made me sound
Hey, it’s not being wrong that is really bad; it’s being unwilling to be corrected. You have allowed yourself to do better, and be better, and that’s great.
The angels of non-stupid rejoiced
I am an atheist but I think you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Just don't read a text dating back centuries and millennia literally. There are tons of texts, religious and otherwise, and very few of them are to be taken literally.
Nobody is born knowing anything. We all come from a starting point of total ignorance. There is no shame in growing at different rates, or being at a different spot in your journey of discovery than others. Only in stopping for fear of what's ahead.
I'm sorry you lost your way. Why do you believe man over God?
What moronic nonsense. Even the official creationists probably squirm at Tucker's ignorance.
Yep. You'll never hear us say "just a theory." The irony is that a theory can be incredibly weak. All that a theory is is an explanation of evidence, which generates hypotheses that can be tested to evaluate the theory. Saying evolution is a theory is neither effective as a dismissive argument nor strengthens the argument.
Ahoy mate, that was an excellent roasting, always great to hear your view on these nutters, three cheers to you and thanks
Tucker is the embodiment of the age old saying: Stupid people think they're smart, Smart people think they are dumb. Bottom line, you can't teach people who think they know everything already.
Unfortunately, that last group comprises like 90% of TH-cam commenters (not including you).
I don’t believe Tucker is really _that_ stupid, but he knows a significant part of his appeal is to people who are. That’s not to say that he’s a disingenuous grifter in all aspects, though, as he is genuinely a right-wing fascist, but a grifter as well.
Also, remember that in Tucker's own words, and those of his lawyer's, it's impossible for you to be an educated person and take anything he says seriously. He spent thousands of dollars in court to try to convince the judge of this.
The one thing that you have to give Rogan credit for that nobody seem to is that he allows everyone on his platform. For all the bs guests he has he also has actual scientists and people who actaually understand what they are talking about.
Not quite everyone. There is at least one person (that I’m aware of) that so far he refuses to have on his show
It definitely skews more towards the BS pseudoscientists.
@@exhumus More recently yes, I will give you that. When he has the bs ones on though, the community at large make countless videos pounting out the bs and why it's bs. So hopefully by having them on, many of the people who might fall for the bs might see the response videos and be spared from detrimental beliefs. Otherwise all they hear is the bs generated by whomever they are listening to on whatever platform that guest has and are more easily influenced into taking their position. It isn't the people down the rabbit hole that matter, they have already made up their minds. It is those peering over the edge that need to be reached.
@@user-eo3bm9sg7n Most people who watch Rogan are not watching debunk videos with an open mind. He's a great comedian but he's done a hard pivot towards the darker side of the anti-establishment for the $$$. He's not as bad as Russell Brand, but let's hope he never gets there.
What is with all the prejudice Software Developers get?
People think they have no lives
Carlson is a grifter. He knows his primary audience.
they all are, i call them "new christian" no interest in the teachings of jesus, solely interested in subs, likes, patron, course sales and book sales. if you want to be a good christian, be atheist....
All political pundits are grifters and type of audience U have doesn't really matter much
Tummy Tuck isn’t even a good creationist hack
*she doesn’t even go here
Best nickname, stealing it if you don't mind
none of the creationist are good though....
@@hilmanh2832 you should read The Genesis Flood, then. PhD fluid dynamics professor at VTech wrote that in 1961. It's a hugely relevant piece of history you owe it to yourself to know about
I love when these people say “oh we’ve moved past that” failing to clarify that “we” is him and whatever idiots happen to agree with his blatant bullshit.
I sometimes wonder if Tucker even believes half of what he says. I think he spews out nonsense that he thinks will ingratiate him with those people who will advance his career the most.
When stupidity meets professional liar it spits out a Carlson. He's been irritating millions for decades.
He’s damaged humanity for decades
5:16 Dave, these videos are hilarious, but your tone of voice makes me believe that covering these immovable objects is getting painfully tedious for you lmaoo take care of yourself
Thank you so much for the subtitles , so much appreciated.
Creationists always claim “I believe in adaptation, not evolution”, but they can never describe how the mechanism of adaptation works.
Goes to show you they have no clue what they’re talking about.
False claim, they explain this frequently and in great detail
@@cosmictreason2242 False.
Define "adaptation".
I'll passively sit across the table, arms crossed, and tsk-tsk whatever you say.
That's the game being played, here.
He’s so blatant with his disinformation
Belief isn't disinformation, it might be wrong but he believes it. You're getting close to totalitarianism and no matter the brand it's not good.
That laugh wtf? I’ve heard it parodied but frankly comedians don’t do it justice how he giggles like a three year old. Probably fits with his IQ
Out of nowhere fear-laugh
Chimps have better laughs than him.
I can't believe you're dunking on the working class everyman Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, I mean talk about low-hanging fruit, his family only owned one castle! 😢
It baffles me that there are people out there who can see someone this stupid and decide "yes, I should consider his opinion on important political topics, he seems to be a smart guy"
Yep. this is the problem with the world. Too many stupid people with no self awareness or anyone to tell them they're very stupid, or at best guide them away from their own stupidity. Then they have access to the internet so think they're really really clever because they ''dO thEiR oWn ReSeArCh''. Then tucker Carlson comes along and acts like their saviour (in the same way andrew tate does with basement dwellers) so they hang on every word he says, they don't push back and tucker then feels even more clever, spouting more nonsense that they in-turn lap up.
8:47 I'm so tired of people saying "it's just a theory." I'm a theoretical chemist - what does that mean to those types of people? I don't exist? Like it makes no sense.
If someone proves that you exist, do you become a legal chemist, or a chemical law? Lol. Also, look on the bright side, at least you're not a hypothetical chemist.
and he's also said that "the adaptation theory is obviously true" in which case, if such a theory did even exist, why'd he call it a theory?
The only group of people allowed to say "it's just a theory" are the hosts of the Theorist channels
As a fellow (former) theoretical chemist, I just go with the Fallout response: "they asked me if I had a degree in theoretical chemistry; I told them I had a theoretical degree in chemistry"
Now I just teach Gen Chem and O-Chem, so I just handwave right past all the math in quantum and most of the 1st and 2nd years seem to be OK with that...But I don't let them off the hook if they can't explain the difference between a scientific law and scientific theory by the final exam
What these science dumbos like Tucker are doing when they say "it's just a theory" is to dumb everything ever done by science down into just everyday theories, like gut instinct or "I have a hunch" types of theories. As if scientists are all sitting around hitting a bong, sipping tea, and saying, "Hell yeah, that sounds cool, we'll publish that," like that's how peer review and research work to them.
I really hope Rogan asks you on the show. Your temperment and no BS approach would be wonderful on his show
watching this guy go from teaching me what sn2 reactions are to shitting on tucker is such a trip
More attention should be paid to him implying the development of atomic science was part of some sort of conspiracy.
The Nazis always thought atomic physics was “Jewish science”
If it's in regards to the Manhattan Project, then by definition he is correct:
"To make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act."
And while it may not have necessarily been unlawful, you can't tell me it wasn't harmful.
Don't get me wrong. Fucker KORORL SON! (walking dead meme) is a dangerously confused individual!
Oh, but it is! It all started with this secret cabal of scientists working on "The Manhattan Project".
Which, I gotta say, even if the bomb is one of the worst things mankind has ever created, that is a DOPE name for a project.
Also, I don't actually know when the study of atomic science started.
No, not a conspiracy, secret demon knowledge
"More attention should be paid to him implying the development of atomic science was part of some sort of conspiracy."
To be fair, the Oppenheimer project was in fact a highly secret military "conspiracy." Seriously. It was a Top Secret project. There were severe penalties for disseminating information about it.
Now, I actually have no idea what you're referring to specifically - I don't even know who you're referring to by "him."
That transition from 0-100 when Carlson said "It's not a new idea" 10:35 is a flat out Jump Scare.
I love the way you don't take any shit and just say it as it is. Sharing this for algorithms.
Keep up the good work Dr Dave. You have tapped in to a and endless source of entertaining material.
I don’t think Tucker is that dumb. I think he thinks his audience and supporters are that dumb so he says the dumb things that he thinks they will eat up.
That’s the only reason he’s happy to stay on the Creationist track. He knows his flock will support him.
That's funny but in reality he's dumber than almost anyone
it's both
It's both. He's a grifter and dumb.
Tucker doesn’t _think_ his audience and supporters are that dumb. He _knows_ they are that dumb. He is well aware of the ignorance to which he appeals.
Tucker had to go off the deep end to get a stable audience now that he's off fox.
He does get that sweet check signed by Putin.
Off the deep end and into the toilet.
How about debunking grounding? I keep getting ads for it 🙄
I'm wondering, in Europe there are certain laws against certain speech of hate speech or grossly offensive speech or other bigoted speech, do you have opinions on disinformation laws to be added for forms of science denial? Holocaust denial is illegal in many countries, do you think it is worth criminalising other denialist views? and would it be effective in your opinion?
@@sushitoyota3191 Yea I mostly agree, I'm more just testing intuitions in deferring power to the state. I'm pretty for criminalising as little speech as possible, though there are contextes id ban some speech
@@sushitoyota3191 well universities have a right to deny who they want on non-immutable grounds
@@AGirlyBoiyou're talking about criminalizing science denial?? 😅
This would be hard legislating that when science is rarely 100% set in stone and needs to be able to pivot when new evidence comes to light.
Much of what is understood to be fact is through consensus that you could fall into some very troubled waters if you criminalize people based on not agreeing with consensus opinion.
I'd imagine someone like yourself would feel engraved if you were prosecuted for not holding believing in every biological fact and stating your opinion.
@@MIKE_THE_BRUMMIE its more of a thought on the extents of free speech, I dont actually believe it
@AGirlyBoi Oooh in that case I highly recommend Peter Boghossian's debate with Chat-GPT, it delves into the topic for free speech and the importance of open debate its eye opening and just nuts to see regardless of the topic. 😁 😊
Im on iFunny, a conservative hellhole that occasionally has funny cat videos. Even the conservatives on there have abandoned tucker, that's how far gone he is.
I’ve really had this on my mind every time people say it’s “just a theory”, is what they think a theory is closer to what a hypothesis actually is?
Yes, they think a scientific theory is what scientists actually call a hypothesis.
A scientific theory is an explanation that corroborates lots of data by the scientific method. A well-established theory is when there is so much evidence that enough of the entire field agrees that it is the best explanation of what is really going on. A hypothesis is a potential explanation that doesn't yet have enough corroboration to call it a theory.
Evolution by natural selection is a very well-established theory.
People who make this mistake give themselves away as scientifically illiterate.
Yeah, pretty much. A lot of people have the "I have a theory as to how this works" and the scientific "theory of evolution" mixed up all the time. A theory is just an idea to some people or it's derived from the classic "in theory" expression so then when they hear the word theory, they think "oh evolution exists in theory".
Colloquially, theory means either substantiated or unsubstantiated speculation. It is unfortunate it means something completely different in science, and people aren't familiar with science. Tools would always find a way, thought. Every day the universe creates a better tool ;)
Not even a scientific hypothesis since scientists have to have facts to base their hypothesis before they'll even accept it themselves, not to mention that hypotheses must be testable.
Mother Tucker can't even get to the first step!
@@stavrosrahnos6071Nail on the head there
Great debunking video - thanks Professor Dave! More of these, please.
TOOL MENTIONED🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥RAAAA🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥WHAT THE FUCK IS 4/4 RHYTHM🔥🔥🔥🔥
I really hate Tool, but I still think the title of this video is unfair to them. 😁
A big problem with Joe Rogan, is that he cares more about maintaining his platform than about the facts. He'll have reputable sources on like doctors and scientists, and completely agree with them and have semi-intelligent conversations with them. But he also doesn't push back on the morons he has on because that would lose him viewers. I'm not convinced he actually believes the nonsense that his guests sometimes spew.
Its a interview/podcast its not like he is setting up debates with hiya guests. Let the idiots speak. Him arguing south them is not going to change their minds anyway.
I don't have a problem with it at all to be honest. It's kind of the point of an interview. He asks the guest questions so that the audience can learn more about the guest. If the audience ends up learning the guest is an idiot, so be it. It's not his job to protect them. I actually find it really annoying when the interviewer constantly interrupts the guest and derails the conversation. It's actually pretty entertaining listening to people say the most insane shit, to be honest. Lex Fridman also has this interview style. Even when his guests are saying some blatantly ridiculous things he just calmly keeps asking them about it while trying to maintain a straight face. Much prefer that to them randomly debating them then and there. Imagine all the funny quotes we would be deprived of. To use the old sun tzu quote "never interrupt your opponent when he's in the middle of making a mistake"
@@user-fg5xs9lh7sIt's more of a problem because he's giving these people a platform that people may view as trustworthy. By putting them on the same stage as some of the legitimate professionals he has on the podcast, it gives them an unwarranted air of legitimacy. Now, while people SHOULD be able to distinguish between the two, not everyone will, and for a lot of these hacks it empowers them to spread their quackery to the masses even more when they can say "hey look guys, Joe had me on his podcast! *insert educated individual* was also on the podcast, so my ideas must be real!!".
@TheDarkSide11891 people have brains that are allowed to think. It's a podcast, not a lecture. You cannot silence those you disagree with by deplatforming them. It's amazing that Spotify didn't give in to those who wanted to cancel him and have him removed. It's better to let them speak so that their views can be challenged.
Agreed too many anti gov, anti mainstream and conspiracy theorists love Rogan. He certainly does not want nor pushes enough to expose this fraudsters.
I always find the reason I can't make answers to things like what Tucker says is that it's so goddamn stupid that it breaks my brain to try and figure out what the hell I just heard.
It's entirely intentional, just say something so dumb it leaves the other guy speechless, then you can clip it and title it "Evolutionist gets owned!"
12:01 Honestly, I don’t think Tucker “genuinely believes” anything. He knows who his audience is, and he caters to them. He is a shock-jock heel. He doesn’t seem to have a genuine bone in his body.
"We know so little..." Talk about projecting! Tucker, YOU understand nothing John Snow
Didn't you already cover parasitic worms?
Tucker is already a masterclass on being a parasitic insect.
Tucker "I get paid for being an idiot" Carlson
Hi prof Dave I just want to say that my dad used to teach evolution at university level and was involved in outreach he also had many problems with creationists and people who did not accept evolution or scientific research. It took a great toll on him. However his attitude towards them was always positive and patient. You are doing a great thing with your videos -educating the public about science and evolution-so please don’t let these people take over your life. You are never going to convince everybody and truly a natural variation in peoples opinions and views is to be expected. Please enjoy your life and your family it’s not completely worth it because you’ll never change most of their views and opinions.
God bless you, and I wish you every happiness.
Dave im happy ur doing this
The fight for truth is so important and we all need to contribute.
I generally don't think Tucker believes anything. What's worrying here is that there's a sizeable audience he can pander to with this rhetoric.
He is too smart not to know better. His audience believes this stuff and he knows they're an easy mark to pull money from.
"He is too smart not to know better."
He often does know better. He in fact said so right here in the clips in this video, in which he knew that Carlson was wrong. So, what are you talking about? If you're expecting him to be some kind of scientific expert in evolutionary biology or paleontology, well, he just isn't. His podcast is basically a "variety show" of discussions with all kinds of different personalities. Joe's expertise is in certain forms of exercise and fighting techniques - everything else he's just some guy having discussions with different people and trying to ask interesting and intelligent questions, while not being an expert in any of them.
@@steveg1961 He knows that evolution is real, but denies it publicly because people who don't think it's real and think a magic sky daddy did it all 4 thousand years ago are ignorant and easily manipulated - such an ignorant audience is his bread and butter.
I disagree. I think Tucker really believes in creationism. Lots of serious conservatives do too. They also often believe climate change is a hoax and Noah's Flood was real.
Believing in pseudo-science is easy for someone like Tucker, who has hated liberals and has made his mark debating them since high school. It differentiates him from liberals, and science is so complicated that it's easy to get it wrong, especially since he dwells full-time in a conservative world.
Actually, I realize now that I misinterpreted who you were referring to. I had thought you were referring to Rogan. Now I realize you were referring to Carlson.
In that case, I still disagree, because Carlson is not a smart guy. I quit watching him entirely, on purpose, when I realized how superficial so much of his thinking was, on topics I was familiar with.
Pretty much what Dave is doing to you as we speak.
Definetly make more of this content, people need it.
I would like to thank tucker. I learned the word "titter" for a 2nd grade spelling bee. I'm 52 and have never been able to use that word, until I saw him laugh. Thanks tucker that was driving me nuts
Tucker is the result of homeschooling, taught by someone that was homeschooled
If I recall correctly he went to christian schools.
He is smart, just dishonest & knows what he's doing here
Intellectual incest
What's wrong with homeschooling? That's an honest question
@@cody967I wouldn't go so far as to call him "smart". However I do think a lot of what he's saying here he doesn't actually believe, and is just doing it so he can drum up engagement from his easily manipulated audience
@@ThunderLips730 a senseless question