Video conference?

All I see is some boring thing with a "health addict."

Maybe yours is soon, though.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Couldn't find the beard anywhere...

http://www.blogtv.com/people/theamazingatheist
^^^ HERE!

Spon9e beat me to it. Good work!

Sigh. The pastor has a clean connection, PZ's is fuzzy.

No beard = not fuzzy.

Beard = fuzzy.

The math fits.

Yeah, PZ doesn't look as clear but he sure speaks more clearly. The pastor stutters and doesn't make any kind of sense. Another nice guy who doesn't know how to think straight. Sad really.

The pastor certainly was fuzzy/fluffy in his thinking. And he has no idea of real evidence...

"Theology is self-correcting, like science."

Hehee. :)

"Theology is self-correcting, like science."

I hurt my side laughing at that statement.

Theology is self-correcting, like science.

People with wrong religious ideas were burned at the stake. It keeps the expression of false ideas way down.

If my end was fuzzy, blame it on the fact I was trying to do it from a hotel connection at a tech conference full of people sucking down the bandwidth.

So? Judging by what we could see—twenty thousand pairs of eyes and what looked like even more tentacles, plus a blob that was either a beak or beard—you could have and should have just eaten a couple of 'em.

I'm fairly sure the lady who couldn't sit still waved a fluffy FSM near the end.

@ 12

She was doing it throughout. It looked more like an octopus to me. Perhaps a distance relative to the FSM?

The woman with the FSM made a reference to Pastafarianism at the end so I assume that's what she meant it to be, the FSM. They said she was an atheist.

Couldn't watch all the way to the end. The pastor just keep ranting on and on. He said he didn't agree with the "God of the Gaps" idea, however, when PZ asked what compelled him to Christianity, he basically pulled out that argument and was ranting on about nothing.

OT: I just saw Eddie Izzard at Madison Square Garden.

The major theme of his rant was atheism (he enthusiastically and hilariously embraced it, apparently much to the chagrin of the other folks in Section 209, a couple of whom walked out), and featured a recurring giant squid.

PZ, you would have LOVED it.

This might be of interest to some. A debate between Stephen Meyer and Peter Atkins to kick off, of all things, Expelled in the UK:

http://www.discovery.org/v/1761

I haven't listened yet.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

I really enjoyed the interview.

The pastor seems like a nice guy, but never could give a passable defense of Christianity. His tap dancing around the obvious was amusing.

Swangeese,

As this was an interview, I didn't think it would be good to give a full on defense of the Christian faith (which we didn't have time for anyway). If you would like that, come over to the Thomas Society.

I think people wanted me to say that PZ was going to hell, which is just stupid or for me to be more combative. I'm not sure I understand why, so maybe you could explain it to me.

The Thomas Society,

I'm not sure I understand why, so maybe you could explain it to me.

Well, perhaps you can explain to us just how theology is self-correcting, as you claimed.

After all, you wouldn't want to be hypocritical and ask someone to do what you will not yourself do, right? ;)

PS Hopefully, your explanation will explain the historical record of Christian schismatism, in particular the Great Schism.

Could somebody put up a direct link to the video rather than a channel?

John,
My original question had to do with why people wanted to see PZ and myself be horrible to each other. I'm not sure what that has to do with my claim about theology being self correcting. Maybe I'm missing something.

I think I gave a good example of why I think theology is self correcting during the chat. However, I'll be posting something about it on the Thomas Society blog in the next day or so. I don't want to hijack PZ's space for that discussion.

I missed it live, and can't find in on the awful blog.tv link. Is it posted somewhere?

Adam,
I don't think it's posted yet. I'll ask Ashley if it will be.

"Theology is self-correcting, like science."

Yep, gotta love all them peer-reviewed theological journals that strictly evaluate the data and evidence, and would never deduce any conclusions based on what's written in their holy books.

Crackpot.

I think I gave a good example of why I think theology is self correcting during the chat. However, I'll be posting something about it on the Thomas Society blog in the next day or so

Thanks, I'll pass.

I don't want to hijack PZ's space for that discussion be laughed out of the room.

Fixed.

I think people wanted me to say that PZ was going to hell, which is just stupid or for me to be more combative. I'm not sure I understand why, so maybe you could explain it to me.

Pastor Weyers, is that you with screen name The Thomas Society? If so, I think you should know the whole thing was posed as potentially combative—by you. :P

Actually, Aratina, that was meant to be a joke.

Rorschach,

Actually, there are quite a few peer review journals in theology.

Feel free to come laugh at me whenever you wish.

Ugh, he was way more fuzzier than PZ despite the connection when it came to the discussions. I figured he would have to be for a guy that seems so understanding and accepting despite holding on to Christianity. It makes me tired just to think of the mental gymnastics going on in his head to make everything fit.

It's funny that listening to him you would almost take him for a deist. But later on he said he wouldn't marry a homosexual couple (despite having nothing against them) so he must have some sort of justification or scripture to back up his views (and by "his" I mean what he thinks therefore what his skydaddy thinks).

But later on he said he wouldn't marry a homosexual couple (despite having nothing against them) so he must have some sort of justification or scripture to back up his views (and by "his" I mean what he thinks therefore what his skydaddy thinks).

Ok, I'll do it...

But, but, would he let them use his bathroom???

Actually, there are quite a few peer review journals in theology.

Facepalm

The Thomas Society,

Actually, Aratina, that was meant to be a joke.

What makes you think that the calls for you to be more combative were not jokes? Is this one of those switcheroos where you get to joke about being combative but we must be serious?

But later on he said he wouldn't marry a homosexual couple (despite having nothing against them)

Is this true, The Thomas Society? You would not marry a couple because of their sexual orientation?

Any chance of getting a non-live version of this for watching?

The Thomas Society wrote:
I think people wanted me to say that PZ was going to hell, which is just stupid

Why would you say that's stupid? Millions of people believe that very thing. Are they all stupid?

However, I'll be posting something about it on the Thomas Society blog in the next day or so. I don't want to hijack PZ's space for that discussion.

PZ wouldn't mind, but I'm sure your arguments will carry much more weight on the Society blog than they would here. And you're not the first to try and use PZ's blog to drive their own blog numbers up.

The Thomas Society:

I think people wanted me to say that PZ was going to hell, which is just stupid or for me to be more combative. I'm not sure I understand why, so maybe you could explain it to me.

We get told we are going to hell routinely. "All you atheistic, pseudointellectual, cannabilistic scientists are going to hell."

Waste of time. We've heard it so often, it stopped being even mildly amusing.

About the only thing exciting these days are the constant death threats. And even those have become boring through repetition.

I suppose when the xians start actually killing people again, someone might care enough to pay attention.

Actually, there are quite a few peer review journals in theology.

Angels, heads of pins, Cthulu vs YHWH, that sort of thing? Look, philosophical speculation regarding how to be a better human being is a welcome activity, and moral philosophy is great, but doesn't the peer review in this realm differ a wee from that in the realm of what used to be called "natural philosophy" now science?

The Thomas Society - blogwhoring for Jesus since 1994!

Ohhhhh PZ! Someone wants to cause you pain and mental anguish (you'll need the TwitFont for this one):

Have dinosaurs lived with man? If so, we would expect them to be recorded in historical records, and when it comes to historical records, there is one which stands above all others in terms of accuracy — the Bible.
Are dinosaurs recorded in the Bible? Most people who have heard anything on this will know the words Behemoth and Leviathan. Did you know there are others which are not mentioned as often? Let’s look at these five examples.
Behemoth (Job 40:15-24) is described as having a tail like a cedar tree, and also as being the largest creature God created. It is probably some type of Brachiosaur, perhaps the 60-feet tall Sauroposeidon. Leviathan (Job 41:1-34) is probably describing a megacroc like Deinosuchus or Sarcosuchus imperator.
In Genesis 1:21, the Bible says, “God created great whales…” Except the word isn’t whale; the word in Hebrew is tanniyn, and means great sea reptiles. This is probably describing pliosaurs like the Kronosaurus.
In Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 it mentions the fiery flying serpents. Fiery in context means poisonous, but what is a flying serpent? In all of my studies, the only creatures that I know of that could come near to such a description are pterosaurs. People like Dr. John Pendleton and Dr. Carl Baugh report that living pterosaurs sited in Papua New Guinea are poisonous, helping to confirm this identification as a pterosaur.
And last but certainly not least, numerous verses mention the unicorn. It’s described as having great strength (Numbers 23:22), one horn (Psalm 92:10), and the ability to do farm work, but not the willingness to serve (Job 39:9-12). Sounds to me like a ceratopsian, probably Centrosaurus.
Dinosaurs have, for far too long, been used to glorify Satan’s counterfeit creation story — evolution. It’s time God got the glory for His works.

Brock Lee
Owatonna

Tom H and Knockgoats,

As for my reponse being better recieved by the people on my blog, most of my readers are atheists. So, you'll have to ask them what they think about my responses.

Second, I could care less if you come to my blog or not. As PZ mentioned me directly in a post, I really don't need to blogwhore, do I?

most of my readers are atheists

This is getting quite comical. Please, continue to defend yourself and to stay silent on the hard questions.

The Thomas Society:

I don't want to hijack PZ's space for that discussion.

You are hijacking PZ's space by being here promoting your blog, but not providing details and evidence that back up any assertions that you make. Like this most recent one:

most of my readers are atheists.

You betray yourself as someone who speaks without thinking. Example:

Second, I could care less

I think you mean "couldn't care less". Keep this up, and people might just possibly think that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Owa a tonna baloney.

Ok, Echidna, fair enough. Try this link on to prove about the atheists on the Thomas Society. I will grant you it's not direct proof, but I wouldn't want to blogwhore, now would I?

http://www.secularstudents.org/node/2854

Second, I'll grant you that comment was a bit snarky. All I can say is that I was up to three with a puking kid after the fundraiser last night. Which, is what everyone is forgetting. Last night was a funraiser for a service project trip that my student group at Ohio State (The Thomas Society) and an atheist group are taking together to New Orleans. We had a number of different guests on and PZ graciously agreed to be on. It was never meant to be debate or a display on who has the biggest penis. It was just supposed to be an interesting discussion, which I hope it was.

I'll answer any question you put to me, as long as PZ doesn't mind.

I wouldn't know about penis sizes, but I definitely know who has the bigger balls.

Seriously though, did I hear you right when you said you wouldn't marry homosexuals? If so, your reasoning?

See, even the balls would take scientific measurements.

In seriousness, that would be correct. I favor, under the current system we have in this country, a civil union plan for gays and lesbians. I think they should have full access to rights under the law.

As a minister in the church, I believe that marriage in the church realm should be between a man and a woman. On the flip side, I wouldn't marry a guy who had committed adultry on his wife and then wanted to marry his girlfriend either.

Re: #43,

I'm shocked! Gay = Adulterer?

phoenixwoman
thanks for the lesson in retrofitting from Brock Lee.
I had a good laugh at the comments on his blog.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can turn to a book for knowledge when they are surrounded by what is supposed to be god's creation.

Making the content of the book appear to fit the real world hardly qualifies it as a source of knowledge.

[OT] In other news the pope makes false claims that the Vatican worked "silently behind the scenes" to save Roman Jews from murder during WW2. Perhaps the pope or his propagandists have been taking revisionist history lessons from the pentecostals or the holocaust deniers? Saving the jews was certainly not the official position of the church nor did the Vatican put a single lira towards saving the jews. Individual priests were left to "act on their own conscience" (meaning it's OK if they decide to be cowards and leave the jews to die or even denounce them to authorities). Fortunately for some people, there were priests who apparently didn't believe in the same god as the pope of the time.

I favor, under the current system we have in this country, a civil union plan for gays and lesbians. I think they should have full access to rights under the law.

Then they should have the right to marry under civil law, and in the eyes of their particular God, if they happen to have one, blessed by a church that celebrates those unions, n'est pas?

As a minister in the church, I believe that marriage in the church realm should be between a man and a woman. On the flip side, I wouldn't marry a guy who had committed adultry on his wife and then wanted to marry his girlfriend either.

For your church, conduct its affairs how you please. Just keep your particular beliefs out of my city halls, legislatures, courts, and social societies, religious or otherwise. I believe marriage in the church realm is sanctified by God's love irrespective of gender or sex. Why is your view privileged over mine?

@43
Separate but equal was the motto for segregation and we all know how that turned out.
While on paper civil unions may seem to give some of the same rights as marriages, but reality hasn't been as obliging. But this is the political side of the issue, what I'm interested in is why you believe church marriages should be between a man and a women. Is it scripturally based?

[OT] "Haitians praise God after apocalyptic quake"

Ugh - can't people see what a perverse lie that is? "Thank god for mercifully and lovingly murdering all those tens of thousands of other people, especially the ones who are dying slowly and painfully." Oh well, I guess that's what happens when people believe that a sado-masochistic god that claims to be a "loving god" (yeah, I'm a-loving all that murder and mayhem) came down to earth one day and said "I'm going to die for you so you can be saved!" If I were there I'd say "hey, you weirdo stupid god, don't you think there's a better way than pretending to die?"

"In seriousness, that would be correct. I favor, under the current system we have in this country, a civil union plan for gays and lesbians." - The Thomas Society

I guess forty years ago, you'd have been in favour of civil unions for mixed-race couples. Don't you know that "separate is not equal", you homophobic hypocrite?

Knockgoats and others,

To be frank, I think the state should be out of the marriage business, period, hetero or otherwise. So, if you want to call it marriage, or civil union, it doesn't really matter, as long as everyone gets equal rights under the law.

Which, Knockgoats, is a far cry from the seperate but equal bullshit of the south.

Knockgoats, I think we are done. It's hard to have a conversation with some who calls you a racist, antiscience and homophobic, which shows you will neither listen to anything I have to say nor care.

Civil union is fine provided it applies to all forms of consenting two-adult relationships, there is no state-recognised alternative, and there is no tax penalty for being single. Anything else is a form of state-sponsored discrimination. But since all three preconditions are not meet, civil unions are not an acceptable alternative.

So try the opposite: Marriage is fine provided it applies to all forms of consenting two-adult relationships, there is no state-recognised alternative, and there is no tax penalty for being single. Anything else is a form of state-sponsored discrimination—which is the current situation is most of the USA(world, actually).

So step outside bi-polar thinking: There should be no state-recognised relationships, consenting adults or otherwise. Everyone is "single" (in which case there cannot be a tax penalty for being single). Whilst that might make sense in some abstract coldhearted way, I daresay it's not very practical nor too sensible. So back to the everyone can be married (if they so choose) world, please… Which means, at the least, eliminating the current discrimination against gays.

To be frank, I think the state should be out of the marriage business, period, hetero or otherwise. So, if you want to call it marriage, or civil union, it doesn't really matter, as long as everyone gets equal rights under the law.

Except gays and adulterers, right?

Jon likes gays just fine, as long as they stay out of his bigoted-ass church.

Sweetie, the state is in the property and inheritance business, and in law nearly everywhere that includes the marriage business. You want the state to have to separately ratify marriage rights in law from your precious sacraments?
How about you drop your semantic objections to the word, and let people do what their churches permit, with the full sanction of law behind them? Otherwise, you are foisting your belief on the whole of the public sphere. Again, I ask you, why are your beliefs so privileged?
The same, by the way, obtains about the teaching of science. The notion that faith-based fairytales regarding the natural world can sneak their way into elementary school textbooks to be taught as plausible fact sickens me. Teach your doctrines in your sacred halls, and leave mine alone.

To be frank, I think the state should be out of the marriage business, period, hetero or otherwise. - The Thomas Society

I might have guessed - a glibertarian arsehole.

Knockgoats, I think we are done.

Well fuck off then.

For the record, I make no claim to moral superiority. In fact, I consider myself a bigger sinner than anyone here. I confess I don't treat people as I should. I confess I harbor hate in my heart. I confess I'm a selfish bastard. I'm not asking anyone to believe as I do, nor do I wish to see the government enforce my beliefs on others.

So I guess self-improvement is out of the question, eh Jon? Waiting for god to fix you before you treat others decently?

As such a sinner are you going to hell? Will anyone for that matter? What about all those good atheists in OSU who help with so many charities and adopt highways?

nor do I wish to see the government enforce my beliefs on others.

Then, will you support allowing civil same sex marriage to be recognized under law on the same terms that opposite sex marriage is recognized? And the same for marriages performed by other sects than your own? Will you allow people to be married in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of their faith, even if not in your own eyes?

If you answer no, how do you square that answer with your statement? You would have the state deny to others a state in law available to you on the basis of your religious belief alone. You want to know what hell is? You're soaking in it.

YAY
let's bash on The Thomas Society, twist some words, and prove atheists are better than christians!

Too bad there can't be a civil discussion about the blogcast.

Knockgoats, AdamK, and others - nothing like proving the negative attitudes, false assumptions, and closeminded-ness often atributed to non-thesists is correct.

Great job, assholes.

Grow the fuck up already.

I agree with the Thomas Society guy, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage. Instead, my feeling is that the state should recognize contracts between people based on their having a relationship. The contract would provide for inheritance, etc. I am such a lawyer, I think that the contracts should have to be in writing to be enforceable and should have a 6 month voidable period. Or something like that.

Maybe the contract should be for a seven year term and then automatically terminate unless renewed or renegotiated. :)

But, given that this isn't likely, I say have marriages for anyone over age of consent who wants to partner up. Call it marriage, call it civil unions, I don't care, just call it the same thing for everyone.

I don't find Thomas Society hypocritical. He doesn't want to marry adulterers or gay people. Okay fine, if I was either I wouldn't want to attend his church. I don't want to attend his church because I am an atheist. We don't roll that way. If he wants to believe in magic, fine by me if he doesn't impose his superstitions on others through the civil system.

https ://www. google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnXUD8UWl4ZUSR2A_2Zov3ITnj-eMYzhvY| wrote:
Too bad there can't be a civil discussion about the blogcast.
Grow the fuck up already.

You know, if there are comments you don't care for, you could just ignore them. No one is preventing you from having a "civil discussion about the blogcast." What have you said about it so far?

@#62

Did you just bitch about civil discussion and false assumptions before calling some commenters assholes and insinuating that they are immature? LOLZ

Anyway, while discussion hasn't been tea party polite, it sure as hell hasn't been a close-minded orgy of hate and word twisting. ThomasSociety has come here to respond to questions aimed at him, and if his answers are BS then he deserves to be told as such.

The "be polite to the xians so we don't look bad" nonsense gets on my nerves. It's hard to have a constructive conversation without stepping on some toes. And if he does believe that I deserve to burn in hell for my lack of faith then I have every right to call him a fucking horrible person.

64/65 :

Johnathan from the Thomas Society has been civil and open about his views and opinions without being a typical "Christian/Theist" that spews garbage and name-calls without listening.

He has been polite and is sharing to compare views - theist or not. Everyone deserves a measure of respect and to return in kind, not to automatically be throwing shit and disrespecting someone because you don't agree with their opinion.

Look at martha's reply for a great example to follow.

In contrast, proven assholes like Comfort, Robertson, Hinn, etc. have at 'em all you want.

66, I'm simply not seeing the shit smearing that would need this kind of reminder to "be respectful". Some of the comments are rude, but most make valid points and aren't the sort of name calling and word twisting that would hinder discussion (at least on the internet).

It looks like I missed all the fun.

#67 & 68:

He has been polite and is sharing to compare views - theist or not. Everyone deserves a measure of respect and to return in kind, not to automatically be throwing shit and disrespecting someone because you don't agree with their opinion.

He's been saying crazy shit; and when people call him on it, then begins the tone-trolling. It's not a matter of opinion whether there are peer-reviewed theology journals. Comparing homosexuality to adultery is not "polite" or "respectful". Maybe he doesn't want to have a full-on debate, but he could at least try to honestly answer a couple of straightforward questions.

In contrast, proven assholes like Comfort, Robertson, Hinn, etc. have at 'em all you want.

I don't need your anyone else's permission to do that. At the same time, you don't have to be completely fucking batshit insane like those folks in order to piss off a few pharyngulans. He's a bullshitter. It's hard to cherry pick from such a vast orchard of dumbass assertions, but here's a small sampling from a couple of comments on his blog:

As for being more informed as a species, I think that’s highly debatable. Do we more now than our ancestors? Depends. We know how to do a lot of shit, but we have less grasp on the why then ever before. In the 20th century, we had more wars, mass killings and death than in nearly all centuries combined. If this is what being enlightened means, then I’m a bit frightened.

That's quite the non sequitur...

For example, there were a few Greek Philosophers who were talking about evolution and atoms long before the modern era. The difference is that in the modern era we have developed the tools to test certain theories. That’s probably the only difference.

Sure, that and those mass killings in the 20th century. *facepalm*

I have asked a number of direct questions of Doubting Thomas. Not a single one has been answered without either a misunderstanding of logic, or total evasion. I, like many other atheists, am not lacking in a system of moral philosophical beliefs grounded in part in a knowledge of my cultural mythology. The poor fellow seems to want to insist on my adopting metaphor as reality, and will not acknowledge that by his own logic that is precisely what he insists upon for one and all.

Shorter sidhra, fuck it. Put up, or shut up, Mr. Theological Peer Review Guy.

Looking at the comments in his blog for on the post-pz interview post it seems he has done enough of weaseling out of hard questions to deserve some of what he's getting. Of course now he's done with the "pz meyer's stuff" so I guess we aren't going to know how deep the bullshit runs.

And like the Inquisition, it's shut up, apparently. I can't post over there on his new thread.

Ah, after I left the tone concern strategy came into play !
That will soon be all that believers have left to defend their bigotry and superstitions.
So expect more of it...:-)

It is too bad that the asshole FakeSagan ruined the charity-drive. At least we raised 76 kilo-U$D before FakeSagan hijacked the charity-show.

To be frank, I think the state should be out of the marriage business, period, hetero or otherwise

Baloney, marriage has always been a state institution in one form or the other. It is not the problem, why bend over to bigotry? The instituion of marriage is just fine, the denial of it is the problem.

On the flip side, I wouldn't marry a guy who had committed adultry on his wife and then wanted to marry his girlfriend either.

Seriously? Why not? If the prior marriage ended is this ending any worse than the ending of a marriage some other way? Once the prior marriage ends it's over. Forgive the man his 'sin' and let him start anew hopefully with a better ending. If it happens to be with the person who he cheated with, well, I don't see any reason that one person should be excluded from his potential new wife list. Their mistakes are in the past- Jesus forgave the woman at the well and told her to sin no more. You apparently didn't heed that lesson.

BTW my exwife did leave me for another man-who she married. They have two great kids and are very happy. So am I. If I can forgive her why should you and your version of God not do the same?

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that several regular posters here have also interacted at Jonathan's site for months. Those of us who have done so have seen that Jonathan and his theistic friends posting there never seem to answer the hard questions. The duck and weave you see here was well practiced there.

Of course a theist doing the duck and weave is nothing new nor notable.

Everyone deserves a measure of respect

Bigots don't - especially hypocritical bigots.

-Of course a theist doing the duck and weave is nothing new nor notable.-

Schizophrenic has always been my observation. I don't know how to tell him but on his website his "I would willingly give my life to save them in that instance." is exactly the same thing that Fred Phelps once said.

Well, looks like we rattled the pastor's cage:

I have had numerous conversations with those same gay friends and told them my position about not peforming a gay marriage. They are not fan of my position, but they understand where I’m coming from....I understand that most people think that being gay is not a choice. Or, that is, that people can’t help being gay because their genetic makeup. Having done some reading on the subject the past few days, I think this is probably true,or at least, from what I can tell. Or, to state it more plainly, I think people can be born with a genetic predisposition to being gay.

If The Thomas Society had not read up on the subject, why would he dismiss the protests of his gay friends?

I don’t think that gays and lesbians should be forced to be hetero. However, the question then becomes, are we just a product of our genes? Do we have choices or are we a slave to our genes? To me, this is where the real question lies. I would say, no, we aren’t. We have choices.

Gays shouldn't be forced to act straight, but they shouldn't act gay either because The Thomas Society said so??? Keeeep digging, pastor!

His statement that people "can't help being gay because their genetic makeup" compared with his "we have choices" statement tells me that he is struggling with cognitive dissonance. Maybe if he struggles enough he will realize that maybe, just maybe, being gay is just fine and if you can't help being gay, you also can't chose not to be gay.

I doubt the good Pastor is Pharyngula material, argument-wise. :)

Credit to him for recognising this.

I doubt the good Pastor is Pharyngula material, argument-wise. :)

I doubt the good pastor is Hannah Montana material, argument-wise.

Rorschach, be kind.

Not TSTKTS, but NTSTKTS.

Faint praise, I know. ;)

Any word on a downloadable recording of the discussion?

To his credit, the Pastor has (sort of) acquiesced to repeated calls for his supporting his contention that "Theology is self-correcting, like science." here.