... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.

Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").

is not without reason to postulate a "theos".

Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."

And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.

I don't know where you get that from.

Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.

Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."

Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.

I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.

Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.

True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.

The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.

Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.

That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evolution, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.

Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.

Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.

There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.

Consider then what the laws of nature are?

That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.

No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).

... because humans have a limited investigation capability.

Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.

The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.

Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.

That is the more important issue here.

... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.

Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").

is not without reason to postulate a "theos".

Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."

And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.

I don't know where you get that from.

Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.

Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."

Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.

I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.

Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.

True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.

The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.

Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.

That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evoluation, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.

Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.

Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.

There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.

Consider then what the laws of nature are?

That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.

No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).

... because humans have a limited investigation capability.

Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.

The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.

Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.

That is the more important issue here.

... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.

Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").

is not without reason to postulate a "theos".

Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."

And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.

I don't know where you get that from.

Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.

Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."

Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.

I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.

Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.

True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.

The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.

Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evoluation, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.

Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.

Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.

There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.

Consider then what the laws of nature are?

That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.

No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).

... because humans have a limited investigation capability.

Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.

The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.

Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.

That is the more important issue here.

... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.

Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").

is not without reason to postulate a "theos".

Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."

And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.

I don't know where you get that from.

Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.

Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."

Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.

I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.

Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.

True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.

The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.

Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took a small step in research and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evoluation, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.

Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.

Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.

There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.

Consider then what the laws of nature are?

That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.

No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).

... because humans have a limited investigation capability.

Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.

The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.

Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.

That is the more important issue here.