Tucker Carlson is a Creationist Tool
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 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/ProfDave...
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.
Yeah, I don't think you understand the "tool" insult.
"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
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
Sad thing is a ton of people just casually agree with him.
who
@@bobbyologun1517the gop
@@bobbyologun1517 ME! TRUMP 2024 You Know he is gonna win, deep down you know.
@@cylandar lol I’m not from the us you yanks r fccked
yeah but if nature can create human why there are no machine that were made like phones or a car ? its less complex.
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.
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
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.
Ok, your editing of Tucker's schoolgirl laugh is now going to haunt my dreams
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
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
'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'.
I don't think that Carlson believes what he says. He knows where his bread is buttered.
Catering to the masses of idiots on this planet has always been profitable. Look at churches.
Trust me, he believes it.
I think you are absolutely correct.
Eric Alterman said he (Tucker) believes every single word.
He embodies buttered bread.
“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
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!!!
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
The other day, a fella told me Tuckums was his goto for the truth. Then he said he has to pay seven dollars a month to watch his stuff now, but it was worth it.
I politely ended the conversation a moment or two later.
And that's the scariest part of all of this
No need to be polite, tell him that he is a useful idiot next time.
There is so much wrong with that thought process lol. I can't believe that there are people out there like this
"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.
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.
"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.
That maniacal laugh from that mouth breather is absolutely terrifying.
I can't believe the engineer didn't tell Tucker to stop breathing all over the mic or that he would have sense to pull his hissing nose back a bit so the audience doesn't have to hear him breathe.
Are you crying?
Bro thinks he's cute
That you focus on something so superficial is absolutely terrifying
@@VelkePivo Why?
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.
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.
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.
Out of all the tools that he can be, tucker decides to be a plunger at a gas station bathroom.
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.
"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.
@@DarkPlaysThings 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...
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
I don't hate Joe but he is a clown.
Edit: Fox susessfully argued in court that no rational person took Tucky's show seriously.
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".
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!
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.
I can not truly express my attitude towards such people without violating UA-cam comments policy and probably some laws 😮
Fabulous comment! This is what I was feeling, but I could not express it as succinctly as you did! Well Done! My God: no wonder FOX "News" viewers are so profoundly uneducated about civics.
just unsubbed Dave cause he's is biased to the left
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.
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?
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 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 UA-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.
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?
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
Tucker is so shitty, he made Joe look smart af here.
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"
@@Qwerty-g1b2oIt'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.
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.
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.
Tucker admits artificial selection led to faster adaptation in dogs anecdotally.
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 UA-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
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.
@@enjoytheview-d1d 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.
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
Tucker Carlson and Terrence Howard would look so cute together melting each other's brains with such logic, rationality and reason... Science is in such great hands with them... 😂 (when people dont or cant understand something, they resort to denial..)
When stupidity meets professional liar it spits out a Carlson. He's been irritating millions for decades.
He’s damaged humanity for decades
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.
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 think it's about time you appeared on Joe's podcast. My conservative guess is that it would be, at least a 5-hour podcast with 7 figure views within 24 hours
Let's make it happen.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I was thinking the same thing after watching your *Terrible Howard* disassembly!
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsliterally the only way I would ever watch JRE again. Get in there!
Really smart people are rarely guests on Rogan.
@@brianlecloux6508 What a bizarre statement given the plethora of physicists and biologists that have been on it. And I say that as someone who isn't a huge Rogan fan.
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.
That was the whole point. One day Tucker is gonna call for terrorist acts and will excuse himself “it was all just entertainment”.
Didn't you already cover parasitic worms?
Tucker is already a masterclass on being a parasitic insect.
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.
this video goes hard, i had no idea Professor Dave Explains dropped roast videos, i'd only ever seen the miscellaneous hard science videos while in undergrad
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 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.
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.
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.
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'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.
More of these, please. Great stuff!
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😂
@@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. UA-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
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.
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!"
I didn't expect Dave to call out Tucker, but honestly im not surprised.
Tucker has said so much, this is his carrier, Kent and the DI were already bad enough, but Tucker is far worse in my opinion, I think what makes him so dangerous is the fact that people just allow him on their shows, like the Joe Rogan podcast for example.
Congrats on hitting 3 million subscribers!
Normally I find your style overly aggressive but Tucker deserves everything he can get on things like this.
words cannot describe how awesome it is that you made this video
Thank you. I miss this kind of BS normally because I don't want my brain to implode. Tucker is a special kind of dangerous. I can't tell if he's really that clueless or he does it for the money.
@jerms_mcerms9231 lol I'll take all of the above!
Tucker 100% knows what he says is BS. He’s said so himself in leaked text conversations and argued it in court. I think he’s just a moral imbecile who doesn’t see the problem with peddling destructive lies as long as there’s a career to be made in doing so.
He is one of Russia's favorite talking heads, so yes.
I don't think tucker is a religious nutjob or a creation denier, but he does want the money and more importantly the adoration from religious nutjobs and creation deniers and is prepared to debase himself to get it ... which is arguably worse .
Edit : Evolution deniers as per sugestion . My bad . Thanks Steve .
no.
he is just a religious american.
Religion and evolution do not go hand in hand.
@@mrfreeman2911not at all there are plenty of religious people who dont deny evolution or science. Many even view the study of science as a means of understanding god's creation.
You wrote, "or a creation denier"
I think you meant "evolution denier."
Except, yes, he is a science denier on the subject of evolution, as he stated explicitly in his discussion with Joe Rogan.
He is a religious nutjob
I think it's obvious that Tucker is a creationist. Among conservatives, creationism is taken seriously by a large number. Discovery Institute quacks like Stephen Meyer get serious interviews by the Hoover Institution, and nearly the entire evangelical world is conservative and creationist.. He lives in that conservative world, and makes his living arguing against and hating liberals. Creationism is a perfect fit for him, especially given his blue-blood upbringing in a New England WASP boarding school and college.
Dave im happy ur doing this
The fight for truth is so important and we all need to contribute.
The comments from the potcast themselves is enough for me to disqualify Tucker Carlson as a serious person.
Tucker, please read "I have no mouth and I must scream" and
"The final question"
Dave, you never fail to make me laugh! 😂
So true💀
11:53 I love your Monthy Python Reference here, alot.
12:52 - Lol at the captions during slo-mo laugh - "Insane demonic laughter because people like Tucker are destroying human civilization"
It's funny 'cause it's true.
Tucker "I get paid for being an idiot" Carlson
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.
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
Professor Dave, I just wanted to say I recently stumbled upon your channel and as someone pursuing a doctorate I absolutely love your content. I admire your effort to be a voice of reason for this world, as I sometimes try to shine light in comment sections when I spot mis/disinformation about science related topics. So, thank you! I hope your channel continues to grow and reaches more people.
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.
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.
Thank you so much for adding English subtitles. It's extremely helpful, more accessible, and helps with scientific terms, technical descriptions, Latin names, etc.
I think that he knows he is lying. He is playing a part for money and power. This is just the character he created.
Well of course he knows he is lying, how else is he going to deny the mountain of empirical evidence. Plus it works. We have seen time and time again that no matter how incorrect someone is, if they say something ridiculous it will ultimately benefit them because of the publicity it generates.
His whole life is a folly of fictitious fakery.
Indeed, sir.👍 And Joe Rogan likes to give people like that a platform, rarely disputes them, & never gives any real pushback or debunking. I would like to see an example of him aggressively pushing back, as I have only seen maybe 100+ of his podcasts.
As someone deep down the rabbit hole, joe Rogan has a lot more dirt on him than that lol. Outside of the fake vitamins scam he shares with his buddy Alex jones, he’s also “friends” with multiple p files. That LA comedy scene is a filthy scummy place.
He did have an episode where he argued with a flat earther for an entire 40 minutes. If he can carry a conversation that long without losing his mind or the guest walking off, that’s honestly impressive.
He knows it’s no use. He challenged Terrence Howard who when changed the subject. Obviously Rogan doesn’t want anyone walking out on him.
I for one would absolutely love to see more videos like this one on Tucker Dave!!! That man is a menace, both on a political and societal level and need to be pushed back by sane people as much as possible!! Please do produce a more in-depth analysis of this talk with Joe and provide the internet with your scathing evaluation of Carlson idiocy!!!
We want to see way way more of this, Dave! Much love from Canada
Professor Dave always makes my day !!! Much thanks for another great video !
I knew the comments in here would be a glorious mess when I saw the title
Thank you for covering this Dave! I’d love to see more!
I just have to thank you for this, you are a good man.
What $9.99 in rubles? :)
@@Louisiana1975 1,000,000,000 rubles
Supreme leader🫡
@@Louisiana1975 91.63 rubles
that Tucker Carlson JRE ep is total brain rot from start to finish, I would love to see you breaking down more of it!
Theres no way you watched it from start to finish.
Because youre anti Rogan/Carlson, youre just throwin leftist crap for fun. Like theres no way id watch 2 hours of the leftist democratic lunatics podcasting together.
Yes!
God damn I love Dave even more now. First he shredded the flat earh bozos and now the right wing grifters.
I’m not sure he even believes what he says; he’s a known liar.
Dave is my favorite debunker, his to the point no BS take downs are an entertainment delight.
Agreed! While I can also enjoy a bit of hubbub, sometimes there’s no call for it.
"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)
Hi, uh Christian here, most people don’t believe that scientific theories are false, as a reasonable person you could figure that out, however something I have learned with being a Christian is that god did make everything, but as a process because he lives outside of time the process appears different to him then us
@@trevonhensley6765 Hi, are you a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist?
Two insults from the “intellectual,” convincing the most easily subjugated
i would call him toddler carlson.. but that''s an insult to toddlers
Yeah cause a toddler is massively successful and has millions and millions in their account
@@AboveEmAllProduction no, cuz a toddler is actually smarter than him
@@AboveEmAllProduction- "successful"
Is it really success when it's just handed to you?
@@eh9618 sure they are buddy. Sure they are.
@@danielcrafter9349 yes.
How does anyone take Tucker seriously? 🤦♂
Magarats
you need to cope and seethe in ignorance. the uneducated will believe anything if it involves one side making fun of the other side
The intelligence agencies have mastered mass mind control and convinced them to hate and attack the people that try to tell them the truth. It is very frustrating and at the same time fascinating to watch play out in real time.
Sadly, some take tucker as the most serious tv personality they have ever seen
@@TeeDee-j9u they will retaliate and call you a Libtard so it's checkmate as far as name calling goes. Try harder to make your point
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
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!