Episode 96: Flood Theology with Dustin Burlet

[@James-oj6ck]

This was a very interesting episode. I'll have to listen to this again.

[@dustinburlet7249]

I am glad that you were able to appreciate it - thank you

[@curtisnorquist6232]

As always, just wonderful!

[@dustinburlet7249]

Thank you for these kind words - they are much appreciated

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Dr. Dustin Burlet is THE GUY

[@dustinburlet7249]

though I know that you are one of God's beloved sheep - you da GOAT my friend :-)

[@OrthodoxJoker]

Do you think there will be a point where creation science becomes mainstream

[@radscorpion8]

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[@OrthodoxJoker]

@@radscorpion8 it was a question

[@deadinmydreams]

No, because there is no such thing.

[@OrthodoxJoker]

@@deadinmydreams you can’t make a claim like that

[@deadinmydreams]

@@OrthodoxJoker I absolutely can. Because there is no such thing as "creation science". It is not science. Science makes predictions. You cannot make predictions with "creation science". Drop your silly superstitions and join reality.

[@elibonham4388]

Evolution disproves this.

[@billcook4768]

Some of us believe the flood theology is the important part, not the flood geology. As such, it doesn’t matter if the flood was a literal event, or a story used to teach a lesson.

[@brandonfutch6355]

If it's not literal and just a story than that definitely undermines the entire collection of books known as the Bible. The Bible notes a story as a parable. If you believe the flood, presented as fact in the Bible, is fake than that allows the rest to be made up and seen as a mere story.

[@stewartpatton2179]

Three grown men talking about a sunday school story as if it were real is pretty sad (entertaining though)

[@radscorpion8]

one can only hope they are exposed to real science one day

[@dustinburlet7249]

At the risk of opening myself up to incessant ridicule/abuse, I would like to say that different people engage with accounts of religion and its intersection with science (history) in different ways. What's important (IMO) here is that we all have opportunities to learn, ask questions, and think critically about what we believe and why, whether it's a PhD theologian discussing a biblical narrative (like me) or a credentialed scientist about their discoveries (Todd). Conversations like these can only be valuable when we're willing to seek first to understand and then be understood

[@stewartpatton2179]

@@dustinburlet7249 Ididn'tsee any critical thinking on display here. Rather, I sae motivated thinking--coming up with analysis to get to a pre-decided solution.

[@Blues.Fusion]

Thanks for playing, enjoy the home version of our game. Don't forget to spay and neuter your pets.

[@dustinburlet7249]

Critical thinking is about analyzing ideas with an open mind, not shutting them down with pre-baked conclusions. Dismissing conversations on science, history, and theology as 'motivated thinking' may (perhaps) reveal more about one's own biases than the researchers you are critiquing. Understanding complex subjects requires more than mockery-it calls for curiosity. Maybe that’s the real 'critical thinking' that is missing here.