Greg Gorey

Morgan and i thought it'd be good to have the three of us set up a time when we can log in to Blog Talk Radio, the site that'll host the podcast, and pick around on the back panel there so we can get you familiarized with how to set up a show, how to take a call, etc., with the aim of setting up a practice show first and then an actual show about the second week of January, once the holidays are over and people's lives are back to normal. how's that sound? is there a time that's better or worse for you?

nice. alright then. and was there a time that's better or worse for you so we can work on setting something up?

just read your post on the argument from witchcraft. do you not agree with Markan priority or did you just accidentally flip Mark and Matthew when talking about the gospel' dependency on each other?

haha. nice. yeah, that'll cause you to make some mistakes for sure. ;)

i want to include the post in tomorrow's Sunday School edition but i don't want to misinform readers with the couple of mistakes that are there so i wanted to check with you.

there's also this: "Two of the four gospels (Matthew and Luke) are thought to be adaptations of Mark. This means that Mark and John (which was written much later) are the earliest sources." 

if John was written much later then how is it one of the earliest sources? in fact John is the latest source out of all the 4 gospels, which, i'm sure you know.

i figured as much once you said you had written it drunk. lol. pretty impressive post for having written it drunk though! lol

Normally I wouldn't do this since it is poor form, but I realize that the way I structured the thread was so unclear that nothing meaningful can come as a result.  If two people in a row misunderstand like that, I have to take the blame for poorly expressing myself.  I'd rather scrap the thread than let it build into something pointless.

Thanks for your reply.

My apologies,

Kris

i didn't do a thing. someone must have pointed him to the post. unless he just randomly checks google for mentions of his name and/or his books. cool though.

as far as Barnes and silicone goes. my understanding is that silicone is mentioned as an element that could be the basis for life in place of carbon were it the case that carbon didn't form because the universe didn't have supermassive stars that went supernova (how we get carbon in the first place). but if carbon wouldn't form then neither would oxygen and so he's making the point that while you'd not only need to replace carbon but also need something for life to respire, and that can't be silicone for obvious reasons. but maybe i'm misunderstanding.

dude. when're you going to fire AOL and get on gmail?

anyway, let's do it tonight. same time. 930. you good with that?

sounds interesting. might have to check that out.

Schellenberg's book is great. his justification of religious skepticism is, i think, unassailable and he offers some new arguments against theism that are very interesting.

i was at Caltech today to see Michael Shermer introduce Sean Carroll give a lecture.

you are now aware of your jealousy. :)