Years ago I wrote this guy a PM on facebook and he sent me a bunch of material and a personal letter with an autographed version of his book. Incredibly good guy. It's my most prized possession.
It doesn’t though. Joe worships something he may or may not call god but God desires worship through free will. If you aren’t worshipping God you are living in Sin and actually worshipping the devil.
Here is the quote by Terrence McKenna that Joe referenced. “Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”
For real. These people are in denial. They just don't want to admit that they are sinners and Need Jesus to forgive their sins. Boom. There you go. You're welco.e
Men have always known God is a tool of fiction. You can explain everything with fiction. Re: Luke 11:29-36 "As the crowds increased", Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. Jonah 1:15-17 KJV So they took up Jonah and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. The superstitious crowd is wicked.
We know them by their works & those use the vocabulary of fiction as if we did not know nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. No man looks for prophet as a job description outside of fantasyland. Even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless since you can't get mountains to jump on command, as if they could ask "How high sir." Jesus Christ is fiction so you can cherry-pick a number of things. I'm trying to use the text to point out nothing is sacred or divine, it is your faith which heals you & not touching the hem of his tunic like people do, by virtual touching the shroud of Turin. The scream from the wicked generation says look there is a magic image of Jesus, He is not fiction. Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply. How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction. If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced? The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying. Need we add more? Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming. We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
Dr. Meyers ability to communicate deep scientific AND philosophical concepts in a calm, courteous manner is extraordinary. His interest in Joe's questions , and no doubt in him personally, is genuine. Stephen appeared to thoroughly enjoy the conversation while at times Joe seemed unsettled by what he was hearing.
@@Reclaimer77 The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at its best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@ikestrawman4625 Also don't know why... I'll repost it here, maybe this time it will work? "The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at his best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@CRCov The modern inflated economy is surely stopping him, at least now he won't be rejected based on mere racial factors now that the supreme court made the wonderful decision of ending affirmative action.
@@sandwichbreath0 Indeed. Although I mean, to be fair, he or his team should've done maybe a little more research into him before hand. There's a reason scientists don't respect Stephen Meyer, and they should looked into it before inviting him.
Joe’s only retort to the points that Stephen cited throughout the whole podcast was “Well could there be more data collected in the future that could provide a different explanation? Yeah? Then these current studies aren’t 100%.” Rogan couldn’t seem to / wasn’t open to comprehend anything beyond his current belief system.
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq How would you expand the topics, is there other ways of asking for other interpretations, or potential attractive theories of a subject to continue expanding the conversation?
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq That was noticeable for me but, it was only for a period in the podcast joe was stuck on at a certain point he was trying to drive. Steve himself complimented Joe as he transitioned to cohesive subjects in the full interview and they were interchangeable.
@Xlippo I came to the conclusion because a lot of it essentially came down to Joe saying "well yea but isn't that just your view or your opinion". Well of course it is. Isn't that why you had him on? Is he supposed to give an opinion that's not his? It was at times as tho Joe was trying to change the guys mind or opinion to the same as Joe. Not joes best in my opinion but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one
I sat and watched a snake in a cage repeatedly going to the corner by the window and trying every possible position and combination of positions to get through that glass and outside. The determination and certainty that it could get out was built on observation and understanding. I can't help but think of that snake when humans espouse understanding the universe. I'm pretty sure there's an element missing in the equation because it's just so far beyond comprehension, just like the snake will never understand how humans make glass.
That’s a great way of illustrating the concept of inhabiting a space where something with a far greater intelligence has set the parameters for existing inside the “cage”. Meanwhile the inhabitant knows there’s more beyond the bounds of its domain even if it can’t comprehend the situation it finds itself in in its entirety.
What a dumb way of saying “I absolutely KNOW there has to be more than evolution and big bang.” Totally bro. Watching a snake totally proves an intelligent designer, but why stop there, as another commenter has alluded, your experience proves his god lul. You two have contributed much to our overall knowledge today. Thanks for your work. It is so incredible how people project their own bs on other people, that they have no idea what their work is about, they can’t even take the time to learn it, only say that it’s wrong, or they know better, because I watched a snake, and made an analogy. It’s so funny how oblivious you all are to this. Joe Rogan is a moron, who cannot help but find conspiracies everywhere. He surrounds himself with charlatans, like this guy, Bob Lazar, Graham Hanock, etc.
Found the atheist ostrich Ok sorry, that was a bit snarky 😅 My friend, did you even listen to the conversation? I ask because you’re coming off as an arrogant fellow who is afraid of hearing compelling arguments, scientific or philosophical or both, for a reality that contradicts your worldview. I’m not saying you ARE that way, I’m saying you’re sounding that way. If you don’t want to listen to the conversation, allow me to do you a favor and give you a timestamp where Joe talks about something that, technically proves miracle(s) are real. This will only take a minute of your life. Start at 12:06
@iservHim It's not a miracle. Let me give you an example: Sir Isaac Newton was kind enough to offer us a very good understanding of how gravity works, to the point where we can use this understanding to make very accurate predictions. But Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation couldn't explain Mercury's orbit. At that time, with what we knew of physics, Mercury's orbit was impossible. It seemed like a miracle, do you see where I'm going? Then Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, gave us an insight into the nature of gravity and was able to explain and predict Mercury's orbit. It doesn't mean that Newton was wrong, as Newtonian physics is still valid. It just means he was missing an aspect of the universe that he couldn't imagine. Now, the Big Bang is no different. Right now, we can't explain what happened before it. But someone will come up with a successor theory to General Relativity and show us the aspect of the universe that we overlooked. Without the math for it, simple things like Mercury's orbit can indeed seem like a miracle. So no... the big bang is not a miracle. It's just an event that we aren't smart enough to understand yet. we're only human.
@@iservHim You responded to my snarky comment with a snarky comment. No offense taken. Well played sir. I am very familiar with Stephen Meyer and his arguments. That’s why I feel confident in my comment and stand by it. His views are extremely “anti scientific” and intellectually dishonest But I will review the link you sent. Thanks!
@@iservHimit’s very difficult to take seriously someone who is so seriously invested in the religious argument. I mean your tag is ‘’ iservhim’ for crying out loud?! I think the difference between the atheist types that you point out and you is that their arguments seem to be more convincing for one particular reason. They’re not self serving. In other words, they’re putting forward the atheist argument, which is when you think about it pretty grim. No real purpose to life, and no after life. where as believers like yourself want to believe because it just feels a lot better than the grim realisations of the other side.’ I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever and re-meet their dead family and friends. It’s just so comforting and peaceful. I really really wish there was some solid evidence for it as I miss my father very much.
@@rogerthornhill1491 Yes, there are comforting aspects of faith in God, but it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. Moreover, we can also say that atheism is comforting because if it is true, then you won’t be judged, there are no significant consequences of your actions, so you can live a life that aims at what feels good. It is easy to put aside Christianity or Theism saying it is based on wishful thinking, but there is much more solid basis for it.
It wouldn't be a JRE episode without Joe not grasping half of what his guest is saying/arguing and Joe taking everything literally and derailing the topic from what his guest just said every time he opens his mouth.
@@Nebx1989SM was outlining his views on metaphysics vs science in a really profound way that I had never considered and Joe couldn't wait one second before blurting out a complete brain fart after. Excruciating to listen to.
I feel that he is very articulate. The reason he pauses at certain points is because he is deciding what to say. The ideas he is trying to explain to a layman audience are very complex, and he wants to explain things so that normal people like us can understand. The guy has devoted his life to study these topics and clearly has an immense amount of knowledge, seen by the fact that he is constantly quoting or references endless amounts of scientists, dates, and even specific events in his life. So when Joe asks a question, his brain is probably going in multiple directions as to how to best answer a question. And he doesn't seem nervous at all, he has spoken to much more hostile audiences. He is awesome!
@@johnnyboy1586 He is also way more wrong than Dawkins. And yeah, he is smooth, isn't he? Most conmen are, it's not exactly a prerequisite, but it helps enormously.
@@johnnyboy1586 You are in good company then, as Meyer isn't a scientist either. His doctorate is in philosophy. Car salesman is actually a good analogy, now that I think about it. He has been embroiled in this ridiculous "teach the controversy" thing from a few years back and he continues to push "creation science" and intelligent design, both of which are demonstrable nonsense. Effectively, every time he quotes a scientist, you can trust that quote. You can also trust that he has taken it out of context and that whatever he claims as a conclusion has no basis in science. Stephen Meyer is a snakeoil salesman who seeks to discredit all of astrophysics, because it doesn't mesh well with scripture.
@@johnnyboy1586 In more specific terms, and I beg you to forgive the double post: In this particular segment, he has mislabeled the Big Bang as the "beginning" of the universe. Which he needs to be true so he can say "god did it", which he does all the time. The first 6 minutes are him waffling about. It is a preamble for what comes next. Starting at minute 6, he starts to talk about a "beginning". Which was originally prompted by Rogan, but he didn't correct him on it. Which he SHOULD have because the Big Bang is not the "beginning". We do not know what happened before the Big Bang. Calling it the beginning of the universe is therefore disingenuous. He then mentions hawkins and Penrose, saying how their findings point towards "a beginning". No, they don't. Both of which have done work exploring the idea of the Big Bang, and Penrose in particular has forwarded the idea of a cyclical universe. Meaning, that there IS no beginning if Penrose is correct. And again, he KEEPS calling it "the beginning". That is disingenuous. The big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. And this is important for Meyer of course, becuase he NEEDS a beginning to justify his "theistic implications" that he mentions at the 11 minute mark. Ask yourself this: He talks about "proofs" for a beginning. I already told you that "beginning" is a deliberate mislabeling by Meyer, but what proofs were actually mentioned in this clip? He just says they exist, he mentions names, he mentions his book, but he makes no effort to explain what they actually are. This entire segment is him waffling. Cheers comes to mind, in particular the famous "but he didn't say anything!" exclamation in episode 11x21 And then of course he launches into the whole fine tuning bullshit at the end of the clip, on which I would refer you to Douglas Adams and his puddle analogy.
Having a beginning doesn't mean that there wasn't something that was there before. Stars explode all the time, it doesn't mean the star didn't exist before.
In the most common philosophical argument for God, the Kalaam, the definition for beginning, in layman's terms, is anything that at some point in the finite past did not exist. So you did not exist at some point in the finite past but obviously your mom and dad did.
As interesting as the story is, what it really makes me consider is the fact that we now live in an age where our information is being so distilled and twisted to support a specific point of view that the average consumer of news cannot get the straight information: it always comes with someone’s bias wrapped around it, and that is really hurting us as a species right now. Whether it be politics, science, religion, healthcare, or any other community-centric topic, it is really hard for us to discuss these things when the information comes half-baked and distorted.
I think it's the opposite. The average IQ of the world has gone up so much due to social media. News is always biased and 70% of the world is programmed by nature to fall for for biases (survival of the fittest is a significant law of nature) if anybody wanted to fund the truth the information is out there. Most choose to the way of fast food new due to whatever excuses one may have.
I've just finished the entire interview - awesome discussion. Some have suggested that Rogan was unfairly combative, but he seemed genuinely curious. The stakes here are high if Meyer is right and so probing questions are absolutely called for. Meyer fielded them well - an intellectual tour de force.
Rogan seems so unwilling to accept anything that Meyer put forward. “Isn’t that based on a limited amount of information?” In reference to all the collected information we have spanning scientific research from the beginning of science as we know it.
I thought Rogan was being pretty obtuse. He doesn't ask any other scientist "but isn't that just based on our current knowledge?". Besides that his thing questioning the validity of Meyer's personal experience was pretty odd given how often Joe talks about the validity of psychedelics based on people's personal experiences with them.
The irony in all of this is that the very fact that we CARE, and that we IMAGINE and CONSCIENTIOUSLY REASON for answers all while proving a creator with the ability to do so.
@luciferfn5367 I once took a lot of magic mushrooms and went to sleep and had a crazy dream about Lil Wayne on The Joe Rogan podcast it was very Vivid and it WAS A GREAT PODCAST
I would've LOVE to see Dr. Michael Heiser on Joe's show b4 he passed. He was such a great communicator for the complexities of the Ancient Near East languages. He could've helped Joe really understand the cuneiform tablets of Sumer or the hieroglyphics of Egypt or what the Biblical Hebrew REALLY says about the Unseen Realm. Hopefully Dr. Heiser's videos come up while looking into Dr. Meyer.
You are right very good professor. And he also had knowledge of the UFO subject that Joe is so interested in, I have seen his program fringepop321 on CZcams, very good.
It was a tough conversation for Joe at times, it’s great to see some constructive conflict at such a high level on a fascinating topic. Some of the best stuff on the internet today
This guy was spewing bullshit about evolution, not being real, that in a binary digital computing system it doesn't make sense. Nature works on the quantum computing system as kaku said. So this guy is completely off to begin with
Joe made some very dumb "counterpoints". He wasn't following the guest arguments at all some times. I think he was too predisposed to ridiculing intelligent design which did a disservice to the conversation because he used very basic, anti intellectual arguments against it. Like 5th grade level arguments. Like Stephen said there's actually a lot of scientists questioning the theory of evolution these days which is mind-blowing in itself.
This is another example of why this is the best podcast on the face of the Earth. The ideas stem from comedy, to politics, to health, to religion, and a fusion of all of those things together in a myriad of combinations, that teases and pleases the intellect.
You say this like millions of other people don’t talk about the same shit. They just weren’t global celebrities when they started talking about the same shit.
@@jsweetness5 My point is that you’re praising Joe for something he isn’t even remotely unique or special for doing just because he has the name recognition others don’t.
@@AzarathMetreon you don’t know my intent. Did someone hurt you? Why are you picking fights with strangers on the internet? Do you struggle when people have different opinions than yours?
I would say that I was totally shocked to see Stephen on Joes show but then he’s always been good about having people on with different views. During my conversion, when I was struggling to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with what we know about the origins of life, I came across Stephens work. Love this man of God! Great podcast!
Perception and priority. If we assemble our priorities properly, the perception we receive will propel us alot farther forward. Its like trying to walk across a bridge as you build it.
Simply isn’t how science works. You’re suggesting that we draw conclusions prior to making even a hypothesis. Your logic should extend to exactly where you applied it: construction. Science is not a bridge, making poor analogies isn’t helpful.
God is an infinite expanding tautology, as scientists keep discovering more and more, religious people keep saying, "Look how amazing God really is to come up with that"
Joe, you should really get William Lane Craig on your show. Christian intellectuals in particular, as well as Christians in general, have been clamoring for years to see William Lane Craig on your show. William Lane Craig is the world's most prominent living Christian apologist. He is the man that Christian, and even atheist, philosophers recognize as the man who Richard Dawkins fears the most in a debate. Ever since you had Richard Dawkins on your show, people have been waiting and waiting for William Lane Craig to also be on your show. William Lane Craig has defeated Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens in formal debates about the existence of God in general, and the Christian faith in particular. I, as well as others, hope that you have him on your show.
Watching a man speak like this like watching a ballet, or listening to mozart...... a brilliant human is an art form that just like the musician or the dancer took thousands of hours of hard work and should be reveered
As much as I love learning about these subjects. I strongly believe the science community knows about 1% of what the universe is and the potential of what is possible. We all need to be open minded and explore all possibilities and leave ego at the door.
@@Marrikable How about you actually take the time out of our busy schedule to listen to the entirety of the podcast before resulting to fruitless insults.
I second this, especially as Dr. Ross has a tonne of insights regarding the alien / UAP phenomenon, which would likely interest Joe. Lots of great info regarding black holes too, which I’ve heard him describe as “evidence of God’s care”.
I am about 2/3 of the way through the conversation and am disappointed. It has its bright spots, the clip above is one of them, but the overall conversation feels like two steps forward and one step back.
I went into this interview hoping to hear something convincing, instead what I got the overwhelming sense of while he spoke was that he went into science seeking evidence of God, not that he discovered God in science. The fact that he said one of his confirmatory experiences with God was that he heard God's voice in his head kinda hints his frame of reference
Exposing Discovery Institute : Stephen Meyer czcams.com/video/Akv0TZI985U/video.html These are the top 5 institutions promoting creationism. They are all bogus, pseudo-scientific . 1. The Discovery Institute (DI) 2. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) 3. Creation Ministries International (CMI) 4. Reasons to Believe (RtB) 5. Answers in Genesis (AiG) This is actual science. Evolution Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: czcams.com/play/PL0FB1F085BD950D0F.html
Exactly! I love Joe's podcast but I notice a lot of his viewers put a huge emphasis on the charisma and personal connection with the guest rather than their actual evidence or epistemology. Nothing wrong with charisma or personal connection but it shouldn't be used to base the truth or believability off of, but unfortunately it's a common pitfall of human psychology
After watching this CZcams clip earlier today, I went to Spotify and watched the entire interview. My reaction is WOW! This is the best interview I have ever seen Joe Rogan do. Dr. Stephen Meyer is obviously very brilliant but lots of folks are brilliant. What is so impressive to me is that his arguments make great sense when I ignore my desired presuppositions.
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
@@atheosmonde Two things. First: Why did you put "simple" in quotes? Second: I don't understand your question, and not just because you didn't put a question mark. God bless you!
He's complicating what's very simple. The point is James Webb Telescope disproved the big bang theory. But these secular zealots changed their theory "again" and are arguing the change never occurred. They were are wrong.
Once people start accepting that “ I don’t know” is an honest and reasonable answer to questions we don’t know the answer to, rather than making shit up, the world will be a much better place.
absolutely great episode no matter what worldview you hold, some did say joe was being a little combative but that's understandable, they're discussing entire worldviews which would probably bring along some kind of defensiveness on both sides but regardless I'm glad joe did bring on someone he disagrees with, his ability to do that separates him from the rest..amazing stuff
i'm 90 minutes through so far, i listen to about an hour of a podcast every single day and Joes attitude this episode has been really disappointing, he hasn't smiled or laughed once and seems to dismiss EVERYTHING Stephen says...not sure if he was in a bad mood the day this was recorded or what but it's been painful to listen to so far..
@duane6504 If "God" exists outside of our physical realm of space and time (and it'd have to If it created this construct), then we'd have no way of measuring . Our inability to prove something simply proves our limitations, not that something doesn't exist.
The probing, and direction of conversation showed both intuitive and inquisitive minds on each side. I appreciated that Joe was able to continue to bring back the focal point of question. While this would often get sent off track with long explanations. The discussion followed a respectful space. The ability for each to reference points and also acknowledge lack of information for certain contained subjects without having ego take over incredible interview!
Our team of aerospace engineers built and tested a “two for one” instrument that contributed to Webb. The first part is the Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS), which helps guide the telescope and point it precisely so it can focus on an object of interest. The FGS is the most sophisticated guidance sensor of any telescope, and it remains active during all of Webb’s observations. The second part is the Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS), to observe distant galaxies, as well as study the chemical composition of exoplanets’ atmospheres to possibly search for conditions that may be favorable for life.
Surprisingly enjoyable conversation that gave me a lot to think about. Stephen humbly reminding me that I still have prejudices, if I'd known he was a proponent of intelligent design I doubt I'd have listened but he makes a great argument for it.
I don't understand why evolution itself can't be the "intelligent design". I mean when human beings design A.I., we try to design it to evolve and adapt to anything. I just think evolution vs intelligent design is an unwinnable argument, because they both are the same thing. Evolution is the intelligent design.
@@weshouser821 That was basically Stephens argument though wasn't it? How we have that (I forget the proper terminology he used) integrated circuit which is evidence of fine tuning and cannot itself handle any kind of mutations without shutting down the whole framework. So the advantageous mutations that cause evolution are reliant on a system that was seemingly fine tuned from the get go. And the more levels you regress the more fine tuned systems there appear to be to even get to having a galaxy/solar system/planet for all this to occur in the first place. As Sagan said, if you wish to build an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe... but literally :')
@@weshouser821especially when you consider the implication that time is relative, and really, something only expirenced by objects with mass. Several billion years of evolution to create a human, or a day, might as well be the same thing if time is relative.
Put those guys in a room with actual experts in Evolution and enjoy the Intelligent Designers squirm uncomfortably around the easy rebuttals to their nonsense. In most cases these guys are either misrepresenting the experts they vaguely cite or are parroting science that was already debunked and abandoned half a century ago.
@@williamingramm2293 What, so they can fail to to explain the gaping holes in their own theory? Even Gerd Müller acknowledges the problem Developmental Gene regulatory Networks (dGrns) present for current micro and macroevolutionary models (check out Eric Davidson's work at Caltech see what I mean). Meanwhile, David Berlinski and David Galertner are not "intelligent designers," so now who's "misrepresenting" William? In which case, I'd suggest, it's people who seem to think this is "a competition" that make the problem all that much harder. This should be about (not) guarding ego and paradigm, and (not) siloing "the truth" (according to only certain experts), and 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 acknowledging what questions remain. That's all a person like Stephen Meyer is saying. New atheism is dead, try and keep up.
What Joe talks about towards the end of this interview is what is talked about in the vedas, srimad bhagavatam, and in bhagavat gita by Lord Krishna. The vast amount of knowledge in hinduism and sanatan dharma informs us so much about the multiverse, origins of these universes, and life origins and how everything is sustained by Krishna. The fact that these books and literatures of the vedas and bhagavat gita from thousands of years ago, far before any modern science, and far before any other common religions today confirms the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe.
@@ssj4goku18825theepic If you mean humans as in we, then modern humans (H. sapiens) evolved from a lineage of hominins, becoming a species about 300 thousand years ago
I think this was THE podcast episode of 2023. It was deep/intelligent/meaningful/engaging/thought-provoking and both Rogan and Meyer exchanged information in such an eloquent way. This was a conversation about arguably the most important questions of humanity, where did all of this come from and what is our place in it?
To me Joe was to behind the conversation, this interview could have been a lot better but Joe seemed slow to understand and ask good questions to make the conversation flow.
@@JG-pw1wp There was some pushback from Joe multiple times whenever Stephen suggested he had “experiences” since becoming a Christian such as caring for others etc when before that he was selfish and wouldn’t have. Rogan suggested that’s just part of being human and joining a group, you’re almost programmed to doing things you otherwise wouldn’t have because of maybe a sense of obligations. Stephen insisted his changes were deeper than that and attributed it to something divine. That’s his reality. I never felt Joe was behind the convo or slow. He was very engaged and knowledgeable about a wide array of topics. Rogan’s ability to have meaningful conversations with a diverse group people is why he’s the 🐐.
Lol if you think this is it, you're in for a lot more learning. There are 100s of actual scientist, engineers, astronomers, astrophysics, theoretical physicist ect. Who create knowledge based content ALL the time. The internet is apparently more than just a place where violence/trash/arguing/racism/stupid tik tok dances/beta males aka "sigmas" talking about "rizz" Glad you could be exposed to something more wholesome. Sad that you only became aware because of the algorithm. Some people seek knowledge out, I suppose others find it haphazardly.
If the Big Bang was not a singular locus but a fissure, then equal threshold moments would be translating up the axis of the fissure leaving a trail of older initial points behind. A zipper disconnecting. This could establish enexpected mass differences when only modelling a point reference. A fissure would produce an extrapolated expansion origin futher forcing imbalances, mixtures, time dilations etc. Scalar realms of the universe would further differentiate giving the field of the universe its own living energy dynamic. As a vibrating spring with mutiple frequency inputs.
Why don't you tell us you don't know? So why are you offended? Sean Carrol is your "god" and this genius just shot holes in your "religion" that's why smart guy. I heard not reproducing also makes you feel smarter you should try that
Oh? I thought you were gonna do it for us...since you clearly see his errors spanning "so many levels" then you can explain one level, just one, in a nutshell.... But I'll also give a sum up, the scientists who rejected the singularity, did so because of their presupposed atheism, and since these discoveries were uncomfortably confirming the millennia old Theistic position, their commitment to a Godless universe wouldn't allow them to be honest and objective about the science.....there.
@@paulcrick856 so your entire synopsis is that if something is not falsifiable it can't be true? It's useless yet it gave provided the ethical foundations for modern science, created the free-est society in human history- the West (where atheism and religious freedoms can exist which you don't find in atheistic societies like the Soviet Union and China n North Korea, nor in the Majority Muslim countries - accounting for more than half the world)...gave you your universal human right, the university (started as monesteris and that's why all the old universities have Christian mottos), hospitals, etc..... useless?? Buddy, if something is logically necessary it becomes immediately unfalsifiable....e.g, can you get something from nothing?? No! That's why Rogan quotes the Atheist scientists who say "give us one miracle and we'll explain the rest,"...coz they understand through REASON you can't get something out of nothing, and a beginning (for the universe) concludes a cause... that's unfalsifiable yet there isn't 2 ways about it... My guy, your argument has no leg to stand on, especially since you couldn't even bother to expound on it, just an appeal to authority...ok, quote your "holy" men then and let's see if their lack of belief sufficiently cancels out the implications of the back ground radiation.
@Linux4UnMe the origin of life conversation is fascinating and Joe has been primed to have it. since they both live in Texas- it seems like a no brainer. I'm here for it...
It would be a waste of time. Joe would just sit there and, not hearing anything, and counter with "ya,but...blah blah a bunch of stupid meat head, 5th grade, cross examinations.
@@DadeMurphieSteven Pinker and Lawrence Krauss have been to Jeffrey Epstein's Island. Lawrence lost his job because of sexual accusations and Pinker was facing a lawsuit because someone from Epstein's Island proved they slept with him. This guy's a fraud but pedophiles are not? Follow the money Jesus! pun intended
Not only is he brilliant, he’s an incredibly kind and authentic person. I’ve had many discussions with him and I’ve felt like a was talking to Einstein.
Yea...like all those times Einstein took the words of ancient desert people as facts and based all of his science on it. There is a reason this guy quoted more philosophy than science... 👀
Listen to Oxford Maths professor John Lennox on this subject also. His discourse with Jordan Peterson on JBP’s podcast is essential listening. Meyer talks so eloquently, he’s a superb listen. I’m also now convinced 🙏🏻
Enjoyed the show. I like the intellectual shows the best. Wish you would have more of them. Try to get James Perloff on. He wrote the book " Tornado in a Junkyard."
This is the best of Rogan, when he has an intelligent, articulate interviewee. You may not agree with them but you have to listen and give them their due. I don't understand the "nothing from nothing" argument. At the moment of the big bang, everything was contained in the singularity, if I am interpreting it correctly. It is the same with the uber massive black holes that are now in the 100 billion solar mass range. The first singularity would have had to have been a lot more massive.
The issue with the materialistic theory of the big bang, is in order for it to happen, you would need the fundamental laws of nature, how did those exist if there was nothing?
I have them all. After reading about the fine-tuning of the universe in two separate sources, I started thinking about the possibility of intelligent design on my own. I was amazed to find Steven C. Meyer's work. His books are so incredibly dense, it takes me a long time to get through them.
The narratives are excellent and the information encyclopedic. I wish he would distill them in smaller, if more numerous volumes. Those tomes are heavy! :)
@parsleypalace3272 It is very easy to write pseudoscience books, and it is another to challenge current scientific models by publishing your discoveries in a peer reviewed scientific journals. He books hold no water because they are completely biased with his world views. That is not science, that is just ramblings.
@@charanko2971 - Interesting, then why don't you write a book and challenge/refute his alleged "ramblngs"(?) While we're waiting for your book, how about challenging/refuting his "alleged" ramblings right here in the comment section, so we can get a preview of the specific things you don't agree with and would like to debate(!?)
@__WJK__ Oh yes, the classic "why don't you do it" argument. I stay in my lane, unlike him. As a geophysics professor, he is not qualified to challenge the subject matter. You can't be biased with your worldview when trying to understand how the universe works in making discoveries. You can still believe in a crater, but when you pursue evidence of a creator through science, it no longer is faith in a creator. It is something else. Edit: BTW, if you don't believe me that he is, in fact, a pseudoscience author, I will leave you this paragraph directly from hisnown website- Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design and helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. CHECKMATE.
Then I learn you something: first, both "big bang" and "Darwin" both equal #33 in Pythagorean numerology, so there's your tell, next, Van Allen belt is so hot, anything that attempted to pass through it would instantly be fried, meaning absolutely NO communication of any kind, I challenge people to produce one single photograph of earth from space, you can't, only CGI garbage, if you look at the "proof" of India landing a rover on the moon, it's comical, it's literally a cartoon.
which is why i think that, basically, we all need to just chill and enjoy the ride as much as possible. which for me has taken god coming into my life in the 'form' of jesus christ.
We can only see the observable universe, but it's not enough. To understand its entirety, we'd have to experience what's beyond the universe, if there is a beyond. If the universe is infinite, we won't find the answer
Seen the James Webb at Goddard when I was young a lady at my church worked at nasa as a rocket scientist or engineer seen the big ass combustion tubes a whole tour of inside the actual facility not the tourist attraction the telescope is so reflective it’s mind blowing it’s shined so bright it’s wild amazing to see in person so far back n they said it took months just to adjust them like that to the perfect angle
Years ago I wrote this guy a PM on facebook and he sent me a bunch of material and a personal letter with an autographed version of his book. Incredibly good guy. It's my most prized possession.
“Years ago they tried to”
You would think you mentioned his name if that was the case lol
@@elbandido420 What are you trying to say?
Yes @ellbandido420 what do you mean man?
@@ryankelley776 I doubt anyone cares whether or not he used this guy or the actual name except for simple minded folk such as yourself.
I love the fact that Rogan has him on even though his worldview conflicts with his. Too many podcasts out there are ecochambers
It doesn’t though. Joe worships something he may or may not call god but God desires worship through free will.
If you aren’t worshipping God you are living in Sin and actually worshipping the devil.
@@daveonezero6258 no such thing as free will, especially if you believe in a soveriegn God.
@@nolivesyes there is, especially if you believe in god
@@headsofhiphop i believe he was asking for evidence, and you managed to avoid that, didn't you?
I haven't seen any evidence for intelligent design, but it's a fascinating topic for conversation.
Here is the quote by Terrence McKenna that Joe referenced.
“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”
For real. These people are in denial. They just don't want to admit that they are sinners and Need Jesus to forgive their sins. Boom. There you go. You're welco.e
@@tylermorgan9018Jesus isn’t coming to save you bro
@@tylermorgan9018 I would say religious people are in denial. But whatever floats your boat
Jesus has already saved me, brother! He can and will save you also if you humble yourself and ask him to. ~Peace!@@Craig-gq4gb
Men have always known God is a tool of fiction. You can explain everything with fiction.
Re: Luke 11:29-36 "As the crowds increased", Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
Jonah 1:15-17 KJV So they took up Jonah and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. The superstitious crowd is wicked.
We know them by their works & those use the vocabulary of fiction as if we did not know nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. No man looks for prophet as a job description outside of fantasyland. Even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless since you can't get mountains to jump on command, as if they could ask "How high sir." Jesus Christ is fiction so you can cherry-pick a number of things. I'm trying to use the text to point out nothing is sacred or divine, it is your faith which heals you & not touching the hem of his tunic like people do, by virtual touching the shroud of Turin. The scream from the wicked generation says look there is a magic image of Jesus, He is not fiction.
Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply.
How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction.
If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced?
The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying.
Need we add more?
Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming.
We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
I sure appreciate Joe's common sense and his ability to listen and think. This was a very interesting interview. Thanks.
Dr. Meyers ability to communicate deep scientific AND philosophical concepts in a calm, courteous manner is extraordinary. His interest in Joe's questions , and no doubt in him personally, is genuine. Stephen appeared to thoroughly enjoy the conversation while at times Joe seemed unsettled by what he was hearing.
Guy is a fraud and pretends he's doing science when it's creationism.
"God did it" ohhhh so deep and philosophical 😂
@@Reclaimer77 The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at its best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@renatomorais8136i can't see your entire comment for some reason
@@ikestrawman4625 Also don't know why... I'll repost it here, maybe this time it will work? "The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at his best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
I am a plumber… But I wish I was an astrophysicist… I love thinking👍
@@CRCov The modern inflated economy is surely stopping him, at least now he won't be rejected based on mere racial factors now that the supreme court made the wonderful decision of ending affirmative action.
Seems like a pipe dream 😜
I’m a dumbass that climbs trees and cuts them down and feel the same way …. We were taught nothing in school
And you would bring more common sense to modern science ! They detached from reality and they need fresh blood!
wouldnt take much to be on the same level as meyers
I love the range of people Joe has on this show it's bloody fantastic.
It's a shame he invited a blatant liar onto his show though
@@fohrum4757 Not all his guests are hits. Some are misses. But that's what comes when you open yourself to conversations with everyone.
@@sandwichbreath0 Indeed. Although I mean, to be fair, he or his team should've done maybe a little more research into him before hand. There's a reason scientists don't respect Stephen Meyer, and they should looked into it before inviting him.
@@fohrum4757which one?
@@fohrum4757”there’s a reason the people who disagree with this guy don’t like him”
We need more clips from this podcast
This interview hit the limit of joes ability to interpret the information he’s getting and respond insightfully. Great interview still!
What made you come to that conclusion?
Joe’s only retort to the points that Stephen cited throughout the whole podcast was “Well could there be more data collected in the future that could provide a different explanation? Yeah? Then these current studies aren’t 100%.” Rogan couldn’t seem to / wasn’t open to comprehend anything beyond his current belief system.
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq How would you expand the topics, is there other ways of asking for other interpretations, or potential attractive theories of a subject to continue expanding the conversation?
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq That was noticeable for me but, it was only for a period in the podcast joe was stuck on at a certain point he was trying to drive. Steve himself complimented Joe as he transitioned to cohesive subjects in the full interview and they were interchangeable.
@Xlippo I came to the conclusion because a lot of it essentially came down to Joe saying "well yea but isn't that just your view or your opinion". Well of course it is. Isn't that why you had him on? Is he supposed to give an opinion that's not his? It was at times as tho Joe was trying to change the guys mind or opinion to the same as Joe. Not joes best in my opinion but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one
I sat and watched a snake in a cage repeatedly going to the corner by the window and trying every possible position and combination of positions to get through that glass and outside. The determination and certainty that it could get out was built on observation and understanding. I can't help but think of that snake when humans espouse understanding the universe. I'm pretty sure there's an element missing in the equation because it's just so far beyond comprehension, just like the snake will never understand how humans make glass.
That’s was a deep observation and analogy bro. I’m for God and Jesus till the end. Seen to much. The Shroud of Turin proves the resurrection imo
That’s a great way of illustrating the concept of inhabiting a space where something with a far greater intelligence has set the parameters for existing inside the “cage”. Meanwhile the inhabitant knows there’s more beyond the bounds of its domain even if it can’t comprehend the situation it finds itself in in its entirety.
What a dumb way of saying “I absolutely KNOW there has to be more than evolution and big bang.” Totally bro. Watching a snake totally proves an intelligent designer, but why stop there, as another commenter has alluded, your experience proves his god lul. You two have contributed much to our overall knowledge today. Thanks for your work.
It is so incredible how people project their own bs on other people, that they have no idea what their work is about, they can’t even take the time to learn it, only say that it’s wrong, or they know better, because I watched a snake, and made an analogy. It’s so funny how oblivious you all are to this. Joe Rogan is a moron, who cannot help but find conspiracies everywhere. He surrounds himself with charlatans, like this guy, Bob Lazar, Graham Hanock, etc.
We melt sand, bro.
Badass snake
Next time on Joe Rogan “Unicorn Expert”
Found the atheist ostrich
Ok sorry, that was a bit snarky 😅
My friend, did you even listen to the conversation? I ask because you’re coming off as an arrogant fellow who is afraid of hearing compelling arguments, scientific or philosophical or both, for a reality that contradicts your worldview. I’m not saying you ARE that way, I’m saying you’re sounding that way.
If you don’t want to listen to the conversation, allow me to do you a favor and give you a timestamp where Joe talks about something that, technically proves miracle(s) are real. This will only take a minute of your life. Start at 12:06
@iservHim It's not a miracle. Let me give you an example:
Sir Isaac Newton was kind enough to offer us a very good understanding of how gravity works, to the point where we can use this understanding to make very accurate predictions.
But Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation couldn't explain Mercury's orbit. At that time, with what we knew of physics, Mercury's orbit was impossible. It seemed like a miracle, do you see where I'm going? Then Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, gave us an insight into the nature of gravity and was able to explain and predict Mercury's orbit.
It doesn't mean that Newton was wrong, as Newtonian physics is still valid. It just means he was missing an aspect of the universe that he couldn't imagine.
Now, the Big Bang is no different. Right now, we can't explain what happened before it. But someone will come up with a successor theory to General Relativity and show us the aspect of the universe that we overlooked. Without the math for it, simple things like Mercury's orbit can indeed seem like a miracle.
So no... the big bang is not a miracle. It's just an event that we aren't smart enough to understand yet. we're only human.
@@iservHim You responded to my snarky comment with a snarky comment. No offense taken. Well played sir.
I am very familiar with Stephen Meyer and his arguments. That’s why I feel confident in my comment and stand by it. His views are extremely “anti scientific” and intellectually dishonest
But I will review the link you sent. Thanks!
@@iservHimit’s very difficult to take seriously someone who is so seriously invested in the religious argument. I mean your tag is ‘’ iservhim’ for crying out loud?! I think the difference between the atheist types that you point out and you is that their arguments seem to be more convincing for one particular reason. They’re not self serving. In other words, they’re putting forward the atheist argument, which is when you think about it pretty grim. No real purpose to life, and no after life. where as believers like yourself want to believe because it just feels a lot better than the grim realisations of the other side.’ I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever and re-meet their dead family and friends. It’s just so comforting and peaceful. I really really wish there was some solid evidence for it as I miss my father very much.
@@rogerthornhill1491 Yes, there are comforting aspects of faith in God, but it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. Moreover, we can also say that atheism is comforting because if it is true, then you won’t be judged, there are no significant consequences of your actions, so you can live a life that aims at what feels good. It is easy to put aside Christianity or Theism saying it is based on wishful thinking, but there is much more solid basis for it.
Great talk and guest! Really enjoyed. Refreshing. 👍props to Joe for having him
It wouldn’t be a JRE episode without Joe trying to justify aliens and drugs lol.
It wouldn't be a JRE episode without Joe not grasping half of what his guest is saying/arguing and Joe taking everything literally and derailing the topic from what his guest just said every time he opens his mouth.
Don't forget about chimps and dolphins!
Elk! Eat Elk! Low kick! Smoke weed! HAUSCHASCA. More Elk! Spinning back kick!
@@Nebx1989SM was outlining his views on metaphysics vs science in a really profound way that I had never considered and Joe couldn't wait one second before blurting out a complete brain fart after. Excruciating to listen to.
@@ygb0y Stephen Meyer is indeed excruciating to listen to...
I feel that he is very articulate. The reason he pauses at certain points is because he is deciding what to say. The ideas he is trying to explain to a layman audience are very complex, and he wants to explain things so that normal people like us can understand. The guy has devoted his life to study these topics and clearly has an immense amount of knowledge, seen by the fact that he is constantly quoting or references endless amounts of scientists, dates, and even specific events in his life. So when Joe asks a question, his brain is probably going in multiple directions as to how to best answer a question. And he doesn't seem nervous at all, he has spoken to much more hostile audiences. He is awesome!
Yes he is waaay more humble than let's say Richard Dawkins 😅
@@johnnyboy1586 He is also way more wrong than Dawkins. And yeah, he is smooth, isn't he? Most conmen are, it's not exactly a prerequisite, but it helps enormously.
@@Alexander_Kale he didn't come across to me like a car salesman,but I'm no scientist so where was he wrong ?
@@johnnyboy1586 You are in good company then, as Meyer isn't a scientist either. His doctorate is in philosophy.
Car salesman is actually a good analogy, now that I think about it. He has been embroiled in this ridiculous "teach the controversy" thing from a few years back and he continues to push "creation science" and intelligent design, both of which are demonstrable nonsense.
Effectively, every time he quotes a scientist, you can trust that quote. You can also trust that he has taken it out of context and that whatever he claims as a conclusion has no basis in science.
Stephen Meyer is a snakeoil salesman who seeks to discredit all of astrophysics, because it doesn't mesh well with scripture.
@@johnnyboy1586 In more specific terms, and I beg you to forgive the double post:
In this particular segment, he has mislabeled the Big Bang as the "beginning" of the universe. Which he needs to be true so he can say "god did it", which he does all the time.
The first 6 minutes are him waffling about. It is a preamble for what comes next.
Starting at minute 6, he starts to talk about a "beginning". Which was originally prompted by Rogan, but he didn't correct him on it. Which he SHOULD have because the Big Bang is not the "beginning". We do not know what happened before the Big Bang. Calling it the beginning of the universe is therefore disingenuous.
He then mentions hawkins and Penrose, saying how their findings point towards "a beginning". No, they don't. Both of which have done work exploring the idea of the Big Bang, and Penrose in particular has forwarded the idea of a cyclical universe. Meaning, that there IS no beginning if Penrose is correct.
And again, he KEEPS calling it "the beginning". That is disingenuous. The big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. And this is important for Meyer of course, becuase he NEEDS a beginning to justify his "theistic implications" that he mentions at the 11 minute mark.
Ask yourself this: He talks about "proofs" for a beginning. I already told you that "beginning" is a deliberate mislabeling by Meyer, but what proofs were actually mentioned in this clip? He just says they exist, he mentions names, he mentions his book, but he makes no effort to explain what they actually are.
This entire segment is him waffling. Cheers comes to mind, in particular the famous "but he didn't say anything!" exclamation in episode 11x21
And then of course he launches into the whole fine tuning bullshit at the end of the clip, on which I would refer you to Douglas Adams and his puddle analogy.
Having a beginning doesn't mean that there wasn't something that was there before. Stars explode all the time, it doesn't mean the star didn't exist before.
In the most common philosophical argument for God, the Kalaam, the definition for beginning, in layman's terms, is anything that at some point in the finite past did not exist. So you did not exist at some point in the finite past but obviously your mom and dad did.
As interesting as the story is, what it really makes me consider is the fact that we now live in an age where our information is being so distilled and twisted to support a specific point of view that the average consumer of news cannot get the straight information: it always comes with someone’s bias wrapped around it, and that is really hurting us as a species right now. Whether it be politics, science, religion, healthcare, or any other community-centric topic, it is really hard for us to discuss these things when the information comes half-baked and distorted.
News has always been that way, sure it's more now with so many different ways to get media but it has always had twists on what was shown or told.
It's now obvious to more people.
People need to be less stupid and gullible. Unless you have seen and analyzed the raw data, assume it’s untrue
I think it's the opposite. The average IQ of the world has gone up so much due to social media. News is always biased and 70% of the world is programmed by nature to fall for for biases (survival of the fittest is a significant law of nature) if anybody wanted to fund the truth the information is out there. Most choose to the way of fast food new due to whatever excuses one may have.
Like how everyone thinks Mars is red, but that was the NASA changing the colors on the pictures. New pictures of Mars look gray mostly, rocks.
I've just finished the entire interview - awesome discussion. Some have suggested that Rogan was unfairly combative, but he seemed genuinely curious. The stakes here are high if Meyer is right and so probing questions are absolutely called for. Meyer fielded them well - an intellectual tour de force.
Rogan seems so unwilling to accept anything that Meyer put forward.
“Isn’t that based on a limited amount of information?” In reference to all the collected information we have spanning scientific research from the beginning of science as we know it.
I think its just the religious nuts . They dont like you questioning "gods word." But in fact, they are men's word
@@bryanhawkins9418 because Joe like most of his audience is brainwashed only with with one side of the argument/s
Meyer stuttered and folded up like a paper cup whenever he had to try and defend the bible for sure. Multiple times in the interview.
I thought Rogan was being pretty obtuse. He doesn't ask any other scientist "but isn't that just based on our current knowledge?". Besides that his thing questioning the validity of Meyer's personal experience was pretty odd given how often Joe talks about the validity of psychedelics based on people's personal experiences with them.
The irony in all of this is that the very fact that we CARE, and that we IMAGINE and CONSCIENTIOUSLY REASON for answers all while proving a creator with the ability to do so.
Yup, and the formulas, laws, etc. are in fact discoverable, ready for us to find.
Stephen Meyer is the goat fr
This has been my dream podcast, Joe finally made it happen, and it didn’t disappoint.
My dream is to see lil wayne on this podcast
@@happymood888😅
@@happymood888holy shit
@luciferfn5367 I once took a lot of magic mushrooms and went to sleep and had a crazy dream about Lil Wayne on The Joe Rogan podcast it was very Vivid and it WAS A GREAT PODCAST
I’ve been wanting to see this as well. So glad it happened!
Joe: “Dude that’s cool, but did you hear about the bear that was surviving on hallucinogenic strawberries?” 😂😂
Big bang has always been doubted me.
There arr so many questions unanswered.
What was there before big bang?
Love Stephen Meyer. Great answers to Joe’s questions. Joe should have on David Berlinski sometime also.
Yes.
Jesus Saves!
bingo! 10000% spot on.
Or William Lane Craig!
John Lennox would be a superstar conversation as well
Berlinski is dead
I would've LOVE to see Dr. Michael Heiser on Joe's show b4 he passed. He was such a great communicator for the complexities of the Ancient Near East languages. He could've helped Joe really understand the cuneiform tablets of Sumer or the hieroglyphics of Egypt or what the Biblical Hebrew REALLY says about the Unseen Realm.
Hopefully Dr. Heiser's videos come up while looking into Dr. Meyer.
You are right very good professor. And he also had knowledge of the UFO subject that Joe is so interested in, I have seen his program fringepop321 on CZcams, very good.
“Confirmation bias.” Hello pot, meet kettle.
i remember this guy from the creationist failure in that court case where they tried to get creationism in the science class.
It was a tough conversation for Joe at times, it’s great to see some constructive conflict at such a high level on a fascinating topic. Some of the best stuff on the internet today
This guy was spewing bullshit about evolution, not being real, that in a binary digital computing system it doesn't make sense.
Nature works on the quantum computing system as kaku said. So this guy is completely off to begin with
Joe made some very dumb "counterpoints". He wasn't following the guest arguments at all some times. I think he was too predisposed to ridiculing intelligent design which did a disservice to the conversation because he used very basic, anti intellectual arguments against it. Like 5th grade level arguments. Like Stephen said there's actually a lot of scientists questioning the theory of evolution these days which is mind-blowing in itself.
@@ShaferHartno, joe is the smartest human currently so you’re wrong
Space is fake. The Earth is flat.
This is true, but compared to the Layman Joe is doing great
This is another example of why this is the best podcast on the face of the Earth. The ideas stem from comedy, to politics, to health, to religion, and a fusion of all of those things together in a myriad of combinations, that teases and pleases the intellect.
Absolutely. And having this guest on sealed the deal for me. Joe Rogan is my ALL TIME favorite!
You say this like millions of other people don’t talk about the same shit. They just weren’t global celebrities when they started talking about the same shit.
@@AzarathMetreon what’s your point?
@@jsweetness5 My point is that you’re praising Joe for something he isn’t even remotely unique or special for doing just because he has the name recognition others don’t.
@@AzarathMetreon you don’t know my intent. Did someone hurt you? Why are you picking fights with strangers on the internet? Do you struggle when people have different opinions than yours?
This is an amazing conversation.
My dad has a podcast with him today!
Wow, pleasantly surprised to see Stephen on Joe Rogan.
I would say that I was totally shocked to see Stephen on Joes show but then he’s always been good about having people on with different views. During my conversion, when I was struggling to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with what we know about the origins of life, I came across Stephens work. Love this man of God! Great podcast!
Perception and priority. If we assemble our priorities properly, the perception we receive will propel us alot farther forward. Its like trying to walk across a bridge as you build it.
Simply isn’t how science works. You’re suggesting that we draw conclusions prior to making even a hypothesis. Your logic should extend to exactly where you applied it: construction. Science is not a bridge, making poor analogies isn’t helpful.
God is an infinite expanding tautology, as scientists keep discovering more and more, religious people keep saying, "Look how amazing God really is to come up with that"
This is the first episode of JRE that tempted me to subscribe to Spotify so I can watch it in its entirety.
You should, this was a fantastic interview
😊 it's free, worth it. Of course Joe is coming back to all platforms soon, so.. 😊
Great podcast Joe! Thanks for having him on and engaging in a respectful conversation.
Joe, you should really get William Lane Craig on your show. Christian intellectuals in particular, as well as Christians in general, have been clamoring for years to see William Lane Craig on your show. William Lane Craig is the world's most prominent living Christian apologist. He is the man that Christian, and even atheist, philosophers recognize as the man who Richard Dawkins fears the most in a debate. Ever since you had Richard Dawkins on your show, people have been waiting and waiting for William Lane Craig to also be on your show. William Lane Craig has defeated Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens in formal debates about the existence of God in general, and the Christian faith in particular. I, as well as others, hope that you have him on your show.
12:10 quote from McKenna is fantastic!
Watching a man speak like this like watching a ballet, or listening to mozart...... a brilliant human is an art form that just like the musician or the dancer took thousands of hours of hard work and should be reveered
As much as I love learning about these subjects. I strongly believe the science community knows about 1% of what the universe is and the potential of what is possible. We all need to be open minded and explore all possibilities and leave ego at the door.
This is why a real relationship with the creator is valuable. He does know everything
@@daveonezero6258😅😅😅😅😂😂😂...oh my.
Yea the scientists know 1% and the combined religious groups know a total of 0% 😂
"You, like, only know 1% brah! You should like, give equal time to the imaginary bullshit that I made up based on nothing!"
@@Marrikable How about you actually take the time out of our busy schedule to listen to the entirety of the podcast before resulting to fruitless insults.
I have a brain cramp. I will definitely listen to this podcast about 3 more times. Good info.
"Confirms", and "is consistent with" are not the same thing, Joe's spidey senses are rightfully tingling
James Webb is changing a lot of things and it just passed its one year observing anniversary!
I truly hope it holds up for awhile and micro-meteors stop hitting crticial components!
No it doesn't.
@@__WJK__Don’t worry. LGBTQ Climate Change alarmist NASA will just take another 10 billion dollars to send a new telescope up there.
Yes! I love Stephen Meyer. Very intelligent and always great discussion with him. So excited for Joe to have more of these discussions.
Stephen is awesome! Maybe Joe will have Caltech astrophysicist Hugh Ross on as well. He matches the science with the Bible surprisingly well.
I second this, especially as Dr. Ross has a tonne of insights regarding the alien / UAP phenomenon, which would likely interest Joe. Lots of great info regarding black holes too, which I’ve heard him describe as “evidence of God’s care”.
I am about 2/3 of the way through the conversation and am disappointed. It has its bright spots, the clip above is one of them, but the overall conversation feels like two steps forward and one step back.
Sad how many of you got conned by this guy lol
@@Reclaimer77Psalm 14 1
Thanks for posting this. Meyer is an amazing person.
I went into this interview hoping to hear something convincing, instead what I got the overwhelming sense of while he spoke was that he went into science seeking evidence of God, not that he discovered God in science. The fact that he said one of his confirmatory experiences with God was that he heard God's voice in his head kinda hints his frame of reference
Exposing Discovery Institute : Stephen Meyer
czcams.com/video/Akv0TZI985U/video.html
These are the top 5 institutions promoting creationism. They are all bogus, pseudo-scientific .
1. The Discovery Institute (DI)
2. Institute for Creation Research (ICR)
3. Creation Ministries International (CMI)
4. Reasons to Believe (RtB)
5. Answers in Genesis (AiG)
This is actual science.
Evolution Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
czcams.com/play/PL0FB1F085BD950D0F.html
Exactly! I love Joe's podcast but I notice a lot of his viewers put a huge emphasis on the charisma and personal connection with the guest rather than their actual evidence or epistemology. Nothing wrong with charisma or personal connection but it shouldn't be used to base the truth or believability off of, but unfortunately it's a common pitfall of human psychology
After watching this CZcams clip earlier today, I went to Spotify and watched the entire interview. My reaction is WOW! This is the best interview I have ever seen Joe Rogan do. Dr. Stephen Meyer is obviously very brilliant but lots of folks are brilliant. What is so impressive to me is that his arguments make great sense when I ignore my desired presuppositions.
Me too!
He was hard to follow for me.
@@GK-qc5ry
it took a while for me as well but the more you familiarize yourself with the concept of Intelligent Design the more dots connect...
@@GK-qc5ryyou're daft
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
Intelligent design expert is possibly the funniest shit I've ever heard
Hilarious on so many levels
I have to give this dude props for how understandable he made this stuff.
God did it, is that how "simple" you need it.
@@atheosmonde Two things. First: Why did you put "simple" in quotes? Second: I don't understand your question, and not just because you didn't put a question mark. God bless you!
@@atheosmondeJust because we're trying to understand what God did. That doesn't deny the work of God and his creations.
He's complicating what's very simple. The point is James Webb Telescope disproved the big bang theory. But these secular zealots changed their theory "again" and are arguing the change never occurred. They were are wrong.
No man.. he was not understandable
Whatching someone like stephan meyer on JRE is like watching obscure band you like start to get popular
There’s a demonic dark side to psychedelics that rarely people talk about.
Stephen meyers on the Joe Rogan podcast! Let’s go!
I really enjoyed the interview. I had the some of the same questions when I was young. Hope to see more philosophical interviews with Joe.
I got to meet Dr. Meyers once…such a cool guy.
Would the outer edge of the bubble be super cooled to change the perspective?
Thank you, Joe, for having him on!!!! Excellent.
Once people start accepting that “ I don’t know” is an honest and reasonable answer to questions we don’t know the answer to, rather than making shit up, the world will be a much better place.
absolutely great episode no matter what worldview you hold, some did say joe was being a little combative but that's understandable, they're discussing entire worldviews which would probably bring along some kind of defensiveness on both sides but regardless I'm glad joe did bring on someone he disagrees with, his ability to do that separates him from the rest..amazing stuff
Its unfortunate that hes one of them, no matter how youvlook at it.
i'm 90 minutes through so far, i listen to about an hour of a podcast every single day and Joes attitude this episode has been really disappointing, he hasn't smiled or laughed once and seems to dismiss EVERYTHING Stephen says...not sure if he was in a bad mood the day this was recorded or what but it's been painful to listen to so far..
@@jimmymcgill2557because intelligent design is idiotic without evidence. It’s all faith-based
@duane6504 If "God" exists outside of our physical realm of space and time (and it'd have to If it created this construct), then we'd have no way of measuring .
Our inability to prove something simply proves our limitations, not that something doesn't exist.
@@LuckyFlesh u don’t know any of that for sure 😂
You can tell this guys brain is working faster than his mouth can keep up with
Yeah, Joe rogan’s a beast.
Think you got that backwards.
@@eddieparris2803 says the highschool dropout?
@@Gaxbiezyou love your highschool dropouts !
Wow, Meyer is a fantastic guest
The probing, and direction of conversation showed both intuitive and inquisitive minds on each side. I appreciated that Joe was able to continue to bring back the focal point of question. While this would often get sent off track with long explanations. The discussion followed a respectful space. The ability for each to reference points and also acknowledge lack of information for certain contained subjects without having ego take over incredible interview!
How do you watch his full episodes with video?
One of the best guests on JRE. Really articulate and organized presentation of ideas.
For me articulate yes but following him throughout the podcast was difficult.
Such a well-spoken and humble person. It's a pleasure to listen to him indeed
@@GK-qc5ryHe seemed nervous in the podcast. He’s usually very clear when he speaks, like with Michael Shermer
I need adderal to follow him
He’s so bias it makes the whole interview comical
Our team of aerospace engineers built and tested a “two for one” instrument that contributed to Webb. The first part is the Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS), which helps guide the telescope and point it precisely so it can focus on an object of interest. The FGS is the most sophisticated guidance sensor of any telescope, and it remains active during all of Webb’s observations.
The second part is the Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS), to observe distant galaxies, as well as study the chemical composition of exoplanets’ atmospheres to possibly search for conditions that may be favorable for life.
Yea sure. Me too
jeez that's very cool
That's cool. Where do you work bro?
@@danielchettiar5670 honeywell aerospace
@@jamastunnaI love your fans and humidifiers
He's 65. Shout out to his genetic code
This was great. Thank you. So many things I want yo read in to that they discussed.
Surprisingly enjoyable conversation that gave me a lot to think about. Stephen humbly reminding me that I still have prejudices, if I'd known he was a proponent of intelligent design I doubt I'd have listened but he makes a great argument for it.
This is great to hear!
I don't understand why evolution itself can't be the "intelligent design". I mean when human beings design A.I., we try to design it to evolve and adapt to anything. I just think evolution vs intelligent design is an unwinnable argument, because they both are the same thing. Evolution is the intelligent design.
@@weshouser821 That was basically Stephens argument though wasn't it? How we have that (I forget the proper terminology he used) integrated circuit which is evidence of fine tuning and cannot itself handle any kind of mutations without shutting down the whole framework. So the advantageous mutations that cause evolution are reliant on a system that was seemingly fine tuned from the get go. And the more levels you regress the more fine tuned systems there appear to be to even get to having a galaxy/solar system/planet for all this to occur in the first place. As Sagan said, if you wish to build an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe... but literally :')
If naturalism were true there simply never would have been anything.
@@weshouser821especially when you consider the implication that time is relative, and really, something only expirenced by objects with mass. Several billion years of evolution to create a human, or a day, might as well be the same thing if time is relative.
Joe plz bring back Stephen with David Berlinski, and David Gelernter, together the three will blow your mind 🤯
Put those guys in a room with actual experts in Evolution and enjoy the Intelligent Designers squirm uncomfortably around the easy rebuttals to their nonsense.
In most cases these guys are either misrepresenting the experts they vaguely cite or are parroting science that was already debunked and abandoned half a century ago.
@@williamingramm2293 What, so they can fail to to explain the gaping holes in their own theory? Even Gerd Müller acknowledges the problem Developmental Gene regulatory Networks (dGrns) present for current micro and macroevolutionary models (check out Eric Davidson's work at Caltech see what I mean). Meanwhile, David Berlinski and David Galertner are not "intelligent designers," so now who's "misrepresenting" William? In which case, I'd suggest, it's people who seem to think this is "a competition" that make the problem all that much harder. This should be about (not) guarding ego and paradigm, and (not) siloing "the truth" (according to only certain experts), and 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 acknowledging what questions remain. That's all a person like Stephen Meyer is saying. New atheism is dead, try and keep up.
Insightful conversation but I was distracted by Joe’s Wu Tang t shirt the whole time 😂
What Joe talks about towards the end of this interview is what is talked about in the vedas, srimad bhagavatam, and in bhagavat gita by Lord Krishna. The vast amount of knowledge in hinduism and sanatan dharma informs us so much about the multiverse, origins of these universes, and life origins and how everything is sustained by Krishna.
The fact that these books and literatures of the vedas and bhagavat gita from thousands of years ago, far before any modern science, and far before any other common religions today confirms the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe.
Joe: have you seen the bear flying a helicopter?
Joe: pull it up Jamie
😂
Finally a believer who can explain Christianity to Joe. Good on Joe for having Stephen on. Great episode!!!!
This is not necessarily about Christianity. 😊 intelligent design, yes 😊
@@67Mannheim Both of them are myths but very fasinating.
@@patrickvanmeter2922how did we come to be in this planet then if according to you this entire scenario is a myth?
@@ssj4goku18825theepicwell god made us out of dirt, and a rib.. That can't be a myth/s
@@ssj4goku18825theepic If you mean humans as in we, then modern humans (H. sapiens) evolved from a lineage of hominins, becoming a species about 300 thousand years ago
I Love how He has guests I didnt even know I wanted to get to know.
So many words, to say words that explain other words. Thanks for the book report.
Definitely read the evening assignment.
This talk is even more intriguing than I expected, and the title set my expectations very high.
Signature in the cell, Darwin’s doubt, return of the God hypothesis. All very good, factual books by Stephen meyer
I think this was THE podcast episode of 2023. It was deep/intelligent/meaningful/engaging/thought-provoking and both Rogan and Meyer exchanged information in such an eloquent way. This was a conversation about arguably the most important questions of humanity, where did all of this come from and what is our place in it?
To me Joe was to behind the conversation, this interview could have been a lot better but Joe seemed slow to understand and ask good questions to make the conversation flow.
@@JG-pw1wp There was some pushback from Joe multiple times whenever Stephen suggested he had “experiences” since becoming a Christian such as caring for others etc when before that he was selfish and wouldn’t have. Rogan suggested that’s just part of being human and joining a group, you’re almost programmed to doing things you otherwise wouldn’t have because of maybe a sense of obligations. Stephen insisted his changes were deeper than that and attributed it to something divine. That’s his reality.
I never felt Joe was behind the convo or slow. He was very engaged and knowledgeable about a wide array of topics. Rogan’s ability to have meaningful conversations with a diverse group people is why he’s the 🐐.
Yeah I guess 2023 is over in July shit should've known
Where can I find the whole podcast?
Lol if you think this is it, you're in for a lot more learning.
There are 100s of actual scientist, engineers, astronomers, astrophysics, theoretical physicist ect. Who create knowledge based content ALL the time.
The internet is apparently more than just a place where violence/trash/arguing/racism/stupid tik tok dances/beta males aka "sigmas" talking about "rizz"
Glad you could be exposed to something more wholesome.
Sad that you only became aware because of the algorithm.
Some people seek knowledge out, I suppose others find it haphazardly.
If the Big Bang was not a singular locus but a fissure, then equal threshold moments would be translating up the axis of the fissure leaving a trail of older initial points behind. A zipper disconnecting. This could establish enexpected mass differences when only modelling a point reference. A fissure would produce an extrapolated expansion origin futher forcing imbalances, mixtures, time dilations etc. Scalar realms of the universe would further differentiate giving the field of the universe its own living energy dynamic. As a vibrating spring with mutiple frequency inputs.
Peter Griffin: You lost me on “The” 🤯
I've lived long enough to now see I.D. guys on Joe Rogan. Bring on William Lane Craig
How is Joe just now getting Stephen Meyer on. His books are legendary.
To sum up, Meyer supports the theory that makes IT plausible. Have Sean Carrol on so he can tell you how Meyer is wrong on so many levels.
Why don't you tell us you don't know? So why are you offended? Sean Carrol is your "god" and this genius just shot holes in your "religion" that's why smart guy. I heard not reproducing also makes you feel smarter you should try that
Oh? I thought you were gonna do it for us...since you clearly see his errors spanning "so many levels" then you can explain one level, just one, in a nutshell....
But I'll also give a sum up, the scientists who rejected the singularity, did so because of their presupposed atheism, and since these discoveries were uncomfortably confirming the millennia old Theistic position, their commitment to a Godless universe wouldn't allow them to be honest and objective about the science.....there.
@@angru_arches Lol God is an unfalsifiable position and therefore a useless theory.
@@paulcrick856 so your entire synopsis is that if something is not falsifiable it can't be true?
It's useless yet it gave provided the ethical foundations for modern science, created the free-est society in human history- the West (where atheism and religious freedoms can exist which you don't find in atheistic societies like the Soviet Union and China n North Korea, nor in the Majority Muslim countries - accounting for more than half the world)...gave you your universal human right, the university (started as monesteris and that's why all the old universities have Christian mottos), hospitals, etc..... useless??
Buddy, if something is logically necessary it becomes immediately unfalsifiable....e.g, can you get something from nothing?? No! That's why Rogan quotes the Atheist scientists who say "give us one miracle and we'll explain the rest,"...coz they understand through REASON you can't get something out of nothing, and a beginning (for the universe) concludes a cause... that's unfalsifiable yet there isn't 2 ways about it...
My guy, your argument has no leg to stand on, especially since you couldn't even bother to expound on it, just an appeal to authority...ok, quote your "holy" men then and let's see if their lack of belief sufficiently cancels out the implications of the back ground radiation.
I never thought I would see Stephen Meyer on JRE and I think it's awesome.
it would be nice to see Joe interview Dr. James Tour about abiogenesis...
Just read your comment and looked in Dr James Tour... Thanks for mentioning.
@Linux4UnMe
the origin of life conversation is fascinating and Joe has been primed to have it.
since they both live in Texas- it seems like a no brainer.
I'm here for it...
Agree
It would be a waste of time. Joe would just sit there and, not hearing anything, and counter with "ya,but...blah blah a bunch of stupid meat head, 5th grade, cross examinations.
I'm amazed at how positive the comments are. I read tens, if not hundreds, of them and I DIDN'T see one negative comment. Amazing community!
I wanna imagine what a Joe Rogan podcast with Stephen Hawking would look like
Yeah
"Beep boop bop beep"
This is an unexpected surprise. Never thought I’d see Dr Meyer on JRE. Any hope that WLC will be on in the near future?
We are all hoping Joe has some theologians on there. He hasn’t been fair to Christian’s or theists in the past, but he’s opening up.
Hopefully not he's a fraud.
@@DadeMurphie Nah man, he is "elite" even believes in miracles
@@DadeMurphieSteven Pinker and Lawrence Krauss have been to Jeffrey Epstein's Island. Lawrence lost his job because of sexual accusations and Pinker was facing a lawsuit because someone from Epstein's Island proved they slept with him. This guy's a fraud but pedophiles are not? Follow the money Jesus! pun intended
Joe NEEDS Dr. William Lane Craig as a guest, like years ago.
Not only is he brilliant, he’s an incredibly kind and authentic person. I’ve had many discussions with him and I’ve felt like a was talking to Einstein.
He’s def no Einstein
Einstein was the elites fake smart guy and this guy is talking all BS! 13 billion years lol!
Yea...like all those times Einstein took the words of ancient desert people as facts and based all of his science on it. There is a reason this guy quoted more philosophy than science... 👀
@@chrism3743 Like what?
@@chrism3743yup. Just more gibber
Listen to Oxford Maths professor John Lennox on this subject also. His discourse with Jordan Peterson on JBP’s podcast is essential listening. Meyer talks so eloquently, he’s a superb listen. I’m also now convinced 🙏🏻
Do you not post the full shows anymore?
I would love to see Joe Rogan do a podcast with John Lennox.
Enjoyed the show. I like the intellectual shows the best. Wish you would have more of them. Try to get James Perloff on. He wrote the book " Tornado in a Junkyard."
Intelligent design is the opposite of intellectual.
Imagine the collective shock to learn someday that the big bang happened only six thousand years ago, and took God only six days to accomplish.
This is the best of Rogan, when he has an intelligent, articulate interviewee. You may not agree with them but you have to listen and give them their due. I don't understand the "nothing from nothing" argument. At the moment of the big bang, everything was contained in the singularity, if I am interpreting it correctly. It is the same with the uber massive black holes that are now in the 100 billion solar mass range. The first singularity would have had to have been a lot more massive.
The issue with the materialistic theory of the big bang, is in order for it to happen, you would need the fundamental laws of nature, how did those exist if there was nothing?
Stephen Meyer's books are excellent. He mixes the history of science with current scientific discoveries in a very accessible way.
I have them all. After reading about the fine-tuning of the universe in two separate sources, I started thinking about the possibility of intelligent design on my own. I was amazed to find Steven C. Meyer's work. His books are so incredibly dense, it takes me a long time to get through them.
The narratives are excellent and the information encyclopedic. I wish he would distill them in smaller, if more numerous volumes. Those tomes are heavy! :)
@parsleypalace3272 It is very easy to write pseudoscience books, and it is another to challenge current scientific models by publishing your discoveries in a peer reviewed scientific journals. He books hold no water because they are completely biased with his world views. That is not science, that is just ramblings.
@@charanko2971 - Interesting, then why don't you write a book and challenge/refute his alleged "ramblngs"(?) While we're waiting for your book, how about challenging/refuting his "alleged" ramblings right here in the comment section, so we can get a preview of the specific things you don't agree with and would like to debate(!?)
@__WJK__ Oh yes, the classic "why don't you do it" argument. I stay in my lane, unlike him. As a geophysics professor, he is not qualified to challenge the subject matter. You can't be biased with your worldview when trying to understand how the universe works in making discoveries. You can still believe in a crater, but when you pursue evidence of a creator through science, it no longer is faith in a creator. It is something else.
Edit: BTW, if you don't believe me that he is, in fact, a pseudoscience author, I will leave you this paragraph directly from hisnown website- Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design and helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.
CHECKMATE.
My favourite type of guests and JRE episodes, something what I can actually learn. Good stuff
From a professional liar?
Rethink that maybe.
what did you learn? or did it just encourage something you already want to believe?
Then I learn you something: first, both "big bang" and "Darwin" both equal #33 in Pythagorean numerology, so there's your tell, next, Van Allen belt is so hot, anything that attempted to pass through it would instantly be fried, meaning absolutely NO communication of any kind, I challenge people to produce one single photograph of earth from space, you can't, only CGI garbage, if you look at the "proof" of India landing a rover on the moon, it's comical, it's literally a cartoon.
@@derhafiAnd then there's people like you that just 💩 on everything worth a damn!
@@360.TapestryYou tell us! It seems you're claiming to have the answers!
Hey Jamie...pull up the clip of the grizzly that spoke on the big bang
Unreal... JRE has the incredibly articulate Dr. Meyer. Made my day!
The more knowledge you gain the more you realise how very little you know and understand. Its a gift and a curse at the same time.
which is why i think that, basically, we all need to just chill and enjoy the ride as much as possible. which for me has taken god coming into my life in the 'form' of jesus christ.
We can only see the observable universe, but it's not enough. To understand its entirety, we'd have to experience what's beyond the universe, if there is a beyond. If the universe is infinite, we won't find the answer
Finally… someone on the podcast who isn’t a comedian or mma fighter
I love this guy how did i miss this
Seen the James Webb at Goddard when I was young a lady at my church worked at nasa as a rocket scientist or engineer seen the big ass combustion tubes a whole tour of inside the actual facility not the tourist attraction the telescope is so reflective it’s mind blowing it’s shined so bright it’s wild amazing to see in person so far back n they said it took months just to adjust them like that to the perfect angle