When I discovered that my weekly dose of Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs had been replaced with a caveman special, I was...nonplussed, but after some diabolical swearing, I decided that poor brain-food was better than none. After all, it couldn't possibly be worse than the dinosaur special two years ago which said "some dinosaurs digest with the assistance of stones in their intestines called 'gastropods.'" (The correct word is gastrolith: a gastropod is a snail.)

O how lamentably in err twas I.

Now I'm sure that there has to be something scientific going on in the paleoanthropology field, but what Discovery Channel aired, it is not. Even by subjecting it to moderately critical scrutiny, one can see that the assertions are at best quite poorly founded when alternative explanations exist, and at worst are arguments from silence totally derived from evolutionary dogma.

The program consisted of crude drawings of Neanderthal cavepersons (in this day and age, one must be gender neutral, after all)  having coprolites beat out of them by how much better homo sapiens were, in tool, thought, and form.

The cloistered-minded theist skeptic in me started screaming right about now: "You and what samples?" he  pried.

It has to do with flatfish that have both eyes on the same side of the head. Of course creationists will say now there are 2 gaps.

Article

Jerud1711 believes that Dr. Greg Bahnsen is one of the best presuppositionalists around.  Since I've never been one to shy away from a good philosophical beat down, I've decided to take him on.  Unfortunately, Jerud didn't provide me with any specific material, so I just picked the first thing that came up from the footnotes on his Wiki page.  Jerud, if you have a link to anything better than this, please let me know.  Anyway, on with the show:

From:  http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm

Fallacy:  Because the world was Christian, Christianity caused science.

Fallacy:  Even if religion was fertile ground for the development of the scientific method, it in no way demonstrates that religion and science are compatible.

Fallacy:  Equating religious worship with scientific inquiry.  How many times has this been addressed on the site? A hundred? 

So, not sure if Yellow Number is going to come back.  He was suppose to make it back today, understandably, he may still be tired from his trip.  Nevertheless, in case he doesn't make it back anytime soon, I want to have a backup set up.

So, any debate?

"A belief in a God, of the Christian sort, can be rationally held."

I have to define the particular belief I hold at some point, but for the time being, I offer these set of definitions to start off with.  If you agree to debate, but upon the condition of a changed definition... offer up your definition.  See if there can't be some agreement.

//

A prominent apologist by the name of Matt Slick debated the RRS on their radio show last year (June 2, 2007). He was apparently upset by the way he was treated, and wrote an article in response: http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm. 

This is bad press for the RRS. It's posted on one of the most heavily frequented Christian websites in the USA. Has anyone considered writing an article in rebuttal, in case someone decides to research the claims he makes?

Upon editing a show today I stumbled across a funny short segment.  I'm digging through almost 60 hours of unedited content, and working on having around 100 hours of fresh content available by years end.  Subscribers, please stick with us as I work to bring you tons of new material. 

Here is the short clip... meet the Furger Argorock...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/Furger-Argorock.mp3

The youtube user RedBeetle claims that empiricism is based on the verification principle which according to him is "self referentially absurd" (what a pseudo intellectual pompous idiot using unnecessary big words) and that you can't learn through your senses which is another reason empiricism is flawed. This means that he believes that it's irrational to conclude that the Earth is round.

He also claims that the Bible is self evident.

I completely pwned him and now he's resorting to groundless insults and ad hominems against me followed by blocking me. He used an ad hominem against me right before telling me to take a class in logic.

I think it would be alot easier if other atheists insulted him a little since he blocks anybody who wins an argument against him immediately. He's also obnoxiously condescending in his views that lead to denying the roundness of the Earth, there have got to be some more atheists out there than me willing to call him out on his non sense.

Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I'm looking for a person to formally debate with me whether it is reasonable to believe that God exists. For the belief that God exists to be "reasonable" I do not mean that the denial of God's existence is irrational or that someone can't rationally not believe that God exists. Instead, what I do mean is that there are grounds of justifiable belief that God exists and it would be my project to illustrate some of those grounds. Finally, when I refer to "God", I am not necessarily speaking of the Abrahamic conception of God. In contrast, I mean to refer to an ultimate being or maybe something of a creator/sustainer.

I have a neural condition known as Asperger's Syndrome, because of that I think using symbolic logic. (not everyone with aspergers thinks like this I just happen to be wired this way) I can't understand how anyone can think that there is a "god".

this is my proposal "If there is a god and it created everything to have a choice of whether to believe in it or not then what created me? as i have no ability to "believe" in a god." Just so you know i sat through 18 years of church with a you gotta be kidding me look on my face.

bodhi