Age of the universe from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

[Quasar93]

6 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

I am not attacking you personally and I am indeed a moderator. I simply asked for clarification about a statement you made after starting a thread with a wikipedia article. I did not do so in a moderator capacity, but out of curiosity, mainly because a lot of those sources cited in the wikipedia article (which I did go to) did not seem like they were from overtly Christian sources.

 

I have spent the better part of 20 years participating on Christian web sites, in which ten years were spent as an administrator, between two different sites over that period of time.  In addition, I founded my own site  a good many years ago.  This terminates anything further I have to say about this issue.

 

 

Quasar93

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, Quasar93 said:

This terminates anything further I have to say about this issue.

Thank you !  The more you post about your sources and so-called credentials, the more we can understand the source of your errors.

I hope this means you will not post any more errors.

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

Greetings, Tristen, If we refuse to read subject material facts contrary to what we have learned to accept, we relegate ourselves to a failure of ever learning the truth, do we not, my dear?

Check out the following, for more on this issue:

  What happened to the Dinosaurs?
From the February 2009 Trumpet Print Edition »
Does Scripture account for the age of reptiles?
 
By Ryan Malone

Quasar93

Are you implying that I haven't "read subject material facts contrary to what I have learned"? As previously stated, my education (both school and university) were secular. Up until my conversion to Christianity, I was exclusively exposed to the secular story of history. I have studied these issues in great detail - and am happy to discuss any "subject material facts" you find compelling. I am, however, not prepared to commit to a point-by-point rebuttal of a wall of cut-&-pasted text - as they are not your own arguments. Such an approach fails to demonstrate any personal investment or the necessary due diligence on your part that would warrant me committing to such an effort.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Tristen
repeated unwanted automatic editing error

[Quasar93]

7 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Thank you !  The more you post about your sources and so-called credentials, the more we can understand the source of your errors.

I hope this means you will not post any more errors.

 

 

I have yet to see you prove your unsupportable opinions.  Peove it.

 

 

Quasar93

[Quasar93]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Are you implying that I haven't "read subject material facts contrary to what I have learned"? As previously stated, my education (both school and university) were secular. Up until my conversion to Christianity, I was exclusively exposed to the secular story of history. I have studied these issues in great detail - and am happy to discuss any "subject material facts" you find compelling. I am, however, not prepared to commit to a point-by-point rebuttal of a wall of cut-&-pasted text - as they are not your own arguments. Such an approach fails to demonstrate any personal investment or the necessary due diligence on your part that would warrant me committing to such an effort.

 

I'm  implying nothing, but rather, responding to your following remark:

>>>Quote by Tristen: "Since this was a cut and paste job, I'm not going to waste time addressing specific comments as though they were yours to defend. I will say though, as a young-earth, Biblical creationist myself, that the author utterly misunderstands and misrepresents my position."

The cut and Pastes I posted here on this thread came from my website where they have been for many years, which is part of the large data bank I have compiled over a 20 year period of time.

The research and study presented within those articles remain, unchallenged.

 

 

Quasar92 

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

I'm  implying nothing, but rather, responding to your following remark:

>>>Quote by Tristen: "Since this was a cut and paste job, I'm not going to waste time addressing specific comments as though they were yours to defend. I will say though, as a young-earth, Biblical creationist myself, that the author utterly misunderstands and misrepresents my position."

The cut and Pastes I posted here on this thread came from my website where they have been for many years, which is part of the large data bank I have compiled over a 20 year period of time.

The research and study presented within those articles remain, unchallenged.

Quasar92 

You dumped a mass of summary information to give the impression of overwhelming support for your position, but with little substantive factual support for the provided claims (a fallacy often called Elephant Hurling). Since they are not your own arguments, I don't think it's fair to expect me to address claims made by people I'm not engaging with; who are likely unaware that such a discussion is occurring, and who have no opportunity of reply.

I understand that you have a story that tries to merge the Genesis account with the secular time frames. As a young-earth, Biblical creationist who has studied the facts, I find no objective reason (in science or logic) to depart from the Genesis account - as written (i.e. no need to add concepts to the narrative that don't exist in the text itself; such as large, unspecified gaps in time between stated events). That means the Bible can be trusted without any appeal to secular concepts - and without compromising any intellectual integrity.

Now if you have a specific argument you think makes your position more tenable than mine, I am happy to give it fair consideration. But I have little interest in responding to a mass dump of largely unsupported information which is not even yours.

[Quasar93]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

You dumped a mass of summary information to give the impression of overwhelming support for your position, but with little substantive factual support for the provided claims (a fallacy often called Elephant Hurling). Since they are not your own arguments, I don't think it's fair to expect me to address claims made by people I'm not engaging with; who are likely unaware that such a discussion is occurring, and who have no opportunity of reply.

I understand that you have a story that tries to merge the Genesis account with the secular time frames. As a young-earth, Biblical creationist who has studied the facts, I find no objective reason (in science or logic) to depart from the Genesis account - as written (i.e. no need to add concepts to the narrative that don't exist in the text itself; such as large, unspecified gaps in time between stated events). That means the Bible can be trusted without any appeal to secular concepts - and without compromising any intellectual integrity.

Now if you have a specific argument you think makes your position more tenable than mine, I am happy to give it fair consideration. But I have little interest in responding to a mass dump of largely unsupported information which is not even yours.

 

You labor under false pretenses.  The facts in the articles I posted are the very same views as mine, or I would not have posted them.  There is much more I could add to it, should it be of any further benefit.  You have provided nothing but meaningless opinio, which I will no longer respond to, supporting your views of a young earth, as opposed to the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.  Either field an argument for your views other than your ipinion, or this will terminate any further interfacing with you about it.

 

Quasar93

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

You labor under false pretenses.  The facts in the articles I posted are the very same views as mine, or I would not have posted them.  There is much more I could add to it, should it be of any further benefit.  You have provided nothing but meaningless opinio, which I will no longer respond to, supporting your views of a young earth, as opposed to the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.  Either field an argument for your views other than your ipinion, or this will terminate any further interfacing with you about it.

Quasar93

Despite the alleged "preponderance of evidence to the contrary" of my position, you are not prepared to provide your own argument for even one such example - and yet readily denigrate my position as "nothing but meaningless opinion". I have made no attempt to provide an argument - because you haven't given me anything of substance to respond to (besides a wall of text full of unsupported assertions authored by someone else). But now you demand that I provide support for my views.

I didn't start this thread. If you want to have a discussion, give me something to respond to - otherwise I am also happy to "terminate any further interfacing with you about it".

[Quasar93]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Despite the alleged "preponderance of evidence to the contrary" of my position, you are not prepared to provide your own argument for even one such example - and yet readily denigrate my position as "nothing but meaningless opinion". I have made no attempt to provide an argument - because you haven't given me anything of substance to respond to (besides a wall of text full of unsupported assertions authored by someone else). But now you demand that I provide support for my views.

I didn't start this thread. If you want to have a discussion, give me something to respond to - otherwise I am also happy to "terminate any further interfacing with you about it".

 

The above remarks are the epitome of those with their heads in the sand and views cast in iron.  Your claim the preponderance of proofs provided you are "alleged," is a joke and the kind of opinionated argument coming from you, as though the evidence in front of you is all false.  You are the one who wants a discussion, but you have nothing to say, but personal opinion, from an empty wagon..  I have provided you the format, now field an argument of your views, with evidence  for a young earth.  Until you do, this is my final response to you on this issue.

 

 

Quasar93

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

The above remarks are the epitome of those with their heads in the sand and views cast in iron.  Your claim the preponderance of proofs provided you are "alleged," is a joke and the kind of opinionated argument coming from you, as though the evidence in front of you is all false.  You are the one who wants a discussion, but you have nothing to say, but personal opinion, from an empty wagon..  I have provided you the format, now field an argument of your views, with evidence  for a young earth.  Until you do, this is my final response to you on this issue.

Quasar93

“The above remarks are the epitome of those with their heads in the sand and views cast in iron”

This remark is an example of an Ad-Hominem fallacy – and therefore technically irrational.

 

“our claim the preponderance of proofs provided you are "alleged," is a joke”

This remark is an example of an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy – and therefore technically irrational.

 

“as though the evidence in front of you is all false”

What “evidence”? You haven't provided any “evidence” for my consideration. I've stated several times that I'd be happy to discuss any specific fact you think obligates one away from the clear reading of Genesis.

 

“You are the one who wants a discussion, but you have nothing to say, but personal opinion, from an empty wagon”

You are the one who started the thread. All I've asked for is for you to provide your own argument for your position – so I know you've done your own due diligence on the issues raised. As it stands, all I can ascertain is that you've found someone who agrees with you, and pasted their arguments. You've dumped a lot of information on this thread. It is not reasonable to expect me to spend the amount of time required to mount a point-by-point response to all that information – especially when I have no indication from you that you have invested any time considering the issue.

That is the point of the Elephant Hurling fallacy – to bombard the opposing position with so much information as to try and bully them out of the conversation. I assume people start threads for the purpose of discussion. But if you don't want “a discussion”, if you just want people to read and accept your position, then I am happy to move on.

 

“I have provided you the format, now field an argument of your views, with evidence for a young earth”

If I want to discuss something creation-specific, I'll start my own thread. But this is your thread. So I've asked for a narrowing of the topic, and evidence that you have more invested than the two minutes it took to cut and paste the various walls of text.

 

“Until you do, this is my final response to you on this issue.”

Until your are prepared to provide your own arguments to clarify your own position, there is little point to any further response.