- Jun 27, 2003
- 1,012
- 28
- 49
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
How is it that two people can study the same information and draw completely different conclusions? Bearing in mind no one is without bias at the outset.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Same observations, different conclusions?
- Thread starter ElElohe
- Start date
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
JohnR7 said:
Except you're forgetting what ElElohe said:
ElElohe said:
If one believes that they are led by "the Holy Spirit of Truth and Grace" and that others are "not abiding in love, faith, and the truth of God," that's a bias.
He'll be convinced that the "Holy Spirit's"/his own ideas are right and others are automatically wrong. He will be unwilling to change his conclusions, even in the face of contrary data.
A clear bias in favor of himself, wouldn't you agree?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
ElElohe said:
Some data is insufficient to decide between two alternative hypotheses. Also, some data supports two different hypotheses.
For instance, if you look ONLY at the narrow area, the fossils in Dinosaur National Monument were deposited by a flood. So, if you put blinders on you could say that this supports the conclusion of both a local and a global flood. However, looking at more detailed data, you can falsify the global flood hypothesis for this particular deposit.
As an example of the former, you can find scientists who can look at the universe in general and conclude it is a creation of God, such as Kenneth Miller. Another equally talented scientist -- Richard Dawkins -- can look at the same universe and conclude that God could not have possibly created it. What this means is that the data really is insufficient to decide the issue.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
JohnR7 said:
ROFL!! Nathan pegged this one. What we have here is a way to get rid of conclusions you don't like AND make a personal attack on the individual who disagrees with you. The criteria proposed here for accepting the conclusion is not based on elimination of bias, but directly on the bias of the individual looking at the conclusion.
That is, if you like the conclusion or it agrees with your bias, you conclude that the other person was being led by the Holy Spirit of Truth and Grace (because he agrees with you and you, of course, are led by the Holy Spirit). OTOH, if he disagrees with you, then you get to insult his personality and say he is not abiding in love, faith, and truth of God.
Pretty neat system proposed here, isn't it? Bias and personal attack all disguised as non-bias.
Upvote
0
ElElohe said:
Scientific method of course can correct this dilemma through peer review and reasearch for additional data that falsifies one of the conclusions. This is the path that mainstream science has followed to come to the conclusions it has. No scientific conclusion rests on the conclusion of one or two individuals perceptions of the data.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Nathan Poe said:
Is it a bias to say that Apples come from a Apple tree? Is it a bias to say that grapes come from a grape vine. Clearly the Bible teaches you shall know them by their fruit.
So what fruit do we look for: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Faithfullness and self control. If a person has this "fruit" then they have the Holy Spirit of God working in them to produce this fruit. If have none of this abiding in them, then they do not belong to God, then they do not have the Holy Spirit of God.
So, how do we know if someone has the Mind of Christ that all born again believers are to have? People who have the Mind of Christ Glorify the Father at all times. They are always obedient to do the will of the Father. They are sober minded, happy, content, helping and serving others. These are just a few things that make up the Mind of Christ.
1 Cor. 13:11-13
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. [12] For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. [13] And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
JohnR7 said:
And by your fruit, by what we have seen you bring to these boards, we know you all too well.
JohnR7 said:
I have never seen any of this coming from you. You obviously do not have the Holy Spirit of God in you. Therefore, what are Christians and non-Christians to believe about anything you have to say on these boards?
JohnR7 said:
This is different than the criteria you just set in the previous paragraph. But it no longer matters. If we are to know you by your fruits, then you have failed the test time and time again.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
lucaspa said:
Good job guy, you just set yourself up. If what your saying is true, then the only way you can know if someone is abiding in the truth is if they love their enemy. You look at how they treat the people who disagree with them. Rather than to look at how they respond to the people who agree with them.
So the only way I can know (according to your hypothesis) if your abiding in the truth is if you show love toward me. If you are kind and gentle and considerate. Sense your contention is that it is not based on being in agreement.
Upvote
0
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
JohnR7: We know you now. You admitted that you post to make people angry. You admitted that you reply to others without reading what they have written.
You post on threads, not to search out truth, not to learn, not to teach, but to prate your own sanctimony.
You post on threads, not to search out truth, not to learn, not to teach, but to prate your own sanctimony.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
JohnR7 said:
It certainly looks that way.
And Gracchus also seems to be implying that you're a sanctimonious, self-righteous troll.
I personally probably wouldn't have gone that far. But clearly the Bible teaches you shall know them by their fruit, and your "contributions" to this forum, of late, do support the conclusion.
Upvote
0
Getting back to the point of this thread it is a mistake to think that creationists especially young earth creationists really look at the same data. I think Lucas has already brought this up is a sense if not directly.
If you read through the geology threads for instance or if you should look at published YEC attempts to explain away the geological falsifications of YEC you will see that YEC really don't look at the same data. YEC are very careful to only "intrepret" small subsets of the data and ignore the vast masses of data that falsify their positions. Then they claim it is just a matter of "interpretation". I don't know if they do this deliberately all the time or just suffer severely from Morton's Demon
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
but sometimes their omission are so egregious that they must almost certainly be deliberate.
You will see this behavior consistently when geology, paleontology or biogeography are discussed and in other situations as well.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
If you read through the geology threads for instance or if you should look at published YEC attempts to explain away the geological falsifications of YEC you will see that YEC really don't look at the same data. YEC are very careful to only "intrepret" small subsets of the data and ignore the vast masses of data that falsify their positions. Then they claim it is just a matter of "interpretation". I don't know if they do this deliberately all the time or just suffer severely from Morton's Demon
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
but sometimes their omission are so egregious that they must almost certainly be deliberate.
You will see this behavior consistently when geology, paleontology or biogeography are discussed and in other situations as well.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
JohnR7 said:
Not at all. You thought Gracchus was calling you a hypocrite, and maybe he was, but I read a little more into the post than that.
Perhaps Gracchus can clarify the post at some time in the future.
(On an unrelated note, I must say, John, I am proud of you for not turning this into another "Pity me; I'm a persecuted Christian" post.
)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
