The Instigator
Reason_Alliance
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
drafterman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,565 times Debate No: 23237
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Reason_Alliance

Pro

Introduction

Though not a young earth creationist myself, I recently found some irony with regard to both the Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH hereafter) compared to Young Earth Creationism (YEC hereafter).

The Many Worlds Hypothesis

MWH employs a world ensemble of real universes so that vast possibilities are actualized; like laws with values necessary for life. In order for MWH to work theorists needed to propose a mechanism for generating so many realities, and inflationary cosmology provided the best shot at a good mechanism. Inflationary cosmology, the mechanism, often contends that our universe is but a small "pocket" within a much larger multiverse. At the heart of the multiverse idea is a theory offered by Alexander Vilenkin sometimes called 'Everlasting Inflation.' For to ensure such a vast array of universes, inflation must be eternal.

In Everlasting Inflation, primordial scalar fields yields a slope issuing in many false vacuums which rapidly expand into true vacuums creating "island universes." The enormous expansion rate of these vacuums ensure that they separate exponentially. Each island universe is subdivided into O-regions that have a universe complete with an event horizon.

Even though the geometrically closed multiverse is finite, its false vacuum will continue on to potential infinity while true vacuums (observable universes) are continually produced, forever. So from a global view, big bangs occur simultaneously as the false vacuum expands. The whole theory presupposes the B-theory of time (which is a compatible, static-like ruler view of time as opposed to the A theory--more like a temporal becoming in which actual infinity is impossible, though potential infinity is possible).

The Problem

There's a problem the theory faces that also plagued Ludwig Boltzmann's many worlds scenario, which is in step with the problem YEC faces; a problem of probable illusionism. Or in other words, If our universe is but a small fleck in a world ensemble, then it's overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a tinier region of thermodynamic disequilibrium than we do.

Why? Because a small fluctuation from equilibrium is vastly more probable than the huge, sustained fluctuation necessary to create the universe we see, and yet a small fluctuation would have to be sufficient for our existence on a world ensemble.

For example, a fluctuation that formed an orderly region no bigger than our solar system would be enough for us to be alive and would be incomprehensibly more likely to occur than a fluctuation that formed the whole orderly universe we see!

Meaning the MWH lends itself to the same type of bizarre illusionism YEC does; our biological, astronomical, geological age estimates would be wrong, giving the appearance of an old earth, while having a young age. This forced the majority of scientists to reject Boltzmann's theory. For that sort of world is much more probable than a universe that has, in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics, moved away from equilibrium for billions of years to form the universe we observe.

Conclusion

Our best of Bayesian application together with the current evidence base, specifically the low entropy state of the early universe, shows that the multiverse, normally accepted as science, is the best hope for creationism, which is normally rejected as unscientific.

Citations

A paper explaining the Many Worlds Ensemble,

http://cdsweb.cern.ch...

A paper explaining the Paradox,

http://arxiv.org...

A paper on Boltzmann’s Brains,

http://arxiv.org...


drafterman

Con

Introduction

The subjects brought up by my opponent are, admittedly, very interesting. And while they are certainly worthwhile reading material in their own right, we should take care not to get too involved in tangents and stick to the resolution at hand. My opponent has adequately described the science in question here and has attempted to link it to YEC.

Before continuing I will make one important note about YEC. YEC is not a unified, codified, standardized theory, in any field. That said, it is almost a fallacy to refer to it as such. Therefore, we must generalize and simplify what YEC commonly means, in that it is a depiction of the creation and development of the Earth in accordance with the Bible. It is not merely a statement that the Earth is comparatively young. This will be important.

After reading through the material presented by my opponent, the key take-away appears to be this:

"Meaning the MWH lends itself to the same type of bizarre illusionism YEC does; our biological, astronomical, geological age estimates would be wrong, giving the appearance of an old earth, while having a young age."

Contention 1 - What does Illusionism get us?

The allusion here is to that of Boltzmann Brains (BB). The works presented by my opponent refer to them, though perhaps in a more technical sense. Here is description more suitable for lay people:

"
The Boltzmann Brain paradox isan argument against the idea that the universe around us, with its incredibly low-entropy early conditions and consequential arrow of time, is simply a statistical fluctuation within some eternal system that spends most of its time in thermal equilibrium. You can get a universe like ours that way, but you’re overwhelmingly more likely to get just a single galaxy, or a single planet, or even just a single brain — so the statistical-fluctuation idea seems to be ruled out by experiment." [1]

This results in my opponents conclusion in the sense that, if we, as observers, are merely random fluctuations, then the entire basis on which we conclude about the universe around is is removed. We cannot treat the external universe as it appears to be, as everything we know about it is based upon our memories, which could, themselves, merely be a result of random fluctuations.

The problem with this is, if what we believe to be the universe is an illusion, then we have no basis on which to say what the "real" universe is like. My opponent only submits that the Earth could be younger than we observe it to be, but this is but one of many possibilities. It could be the Earth is older. It could also be that there isn't an Earth at all. With Boltzmann's brains in effect, it isn't merely cosmological constants and fundamental values that are called into question it is everything anyone thinks they know.

Even if this scenario causes us to throw out established measurements for the Universe and Earth's ages, there is nothing here that allows us to replace it with anything that supports specific estimates required for YEC. The only thing we can put in its place is a big question mark.

Contention 2 - The Long Walk

Since the scenario proposed by my opponent doesn't actually provide measurements in support of YEC, what does it do? All it does is propose that the existing measurements could be wrong. But, we don't need MWH or BB to demonstrate this. Science (mostly) incorporates the fundamental aspect of falsification.

Consider: "
[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" [2] (emphasis mine). Falsifiability, being the ability to demonstrate that a scientific theory is false. "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific." [3]

Current measurements, such as the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are components in, and conclusions of, existing cosmological, astrological, geological, and other scientific theories. Being scientific theories, they must be refutable in the sense that there must be some event which demonstrates them to be false. With this in mind, we must realize that as a fundamental aspect of science, we already admit that these measurements may be false.

So, pulling up these esoteric theories gains us nothing in this regard. We already knew, and it was already accepted, that it is possible for these measurements to be wrong. We judge them to be most likely correct, based upon observation and testing, but we implicitly allow for them to be disproved at any time. Since the only thing my opponent suggests is that they could be wrong, if a given untested hypothesis is correct, then this adds nothing to discussion. Invoking MWH in this context doesn't make these values any less likely to be true, or any more likely to be false, then we currently allow for.

Contention 3 - Illusionism Revisited

Let's revisit the topic of Illusionism as well as the specifics of YEC referenced in the introduction. YEC isn't merely the suggestion that the Earth is younger than science suggests. Rather, it is young age of the Earth, within certain ranges, based upon the material presented by the Bible. That is, while there are many variations of YEC, in terms of exactly how old the Earth is, all are ostensibly rooted in using the Bible as a basis for that measurement. For example, using the geneologies presented by the Bible to trace the history of the Earth backwards from some known point.

However, the problem with this is MWH invokes BB which suggests that we, as observes, are spontaneously arisen from random fluctuations, our memories intact. Thus, everything we think we know, including the content of the Bible, is false. To take this theory and apply its consequences to one area (measurements of the age of the Universe and Earth through scientific means) but not another (measurements of the age of the Universe and Earth based on ancient Middle Eastern myths) is special pleading.

With MWH in effect, nothing is sacred, literally. Everything we think we know must be abandoned, including the Bible.

Summary

My opponent has, admittedly, drawn and interesting connection with a scientific hypothesis and some vague resemblance to Biblical suggestions. However, at the end of the day:

1. MWH and BB only suggest that our measurements are not rooted in some external, objective, reality and could be wrong. They don't demonstrate that they are wrong in the specific ways necessary to support YEC.
2. Science includes falsifiability as a fundamental aspect, and therefore already concedes that they could be wrong, ergo invoking MWH does nothing specific in this sense to support YEC.
3. If MWH and BB are true, then we must also cast out conclusions drawn by the Bible, including YEC.

[1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...
[2] http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
[3] Ibid.
Debate Round No. 1
Reason_Alliance

Pro

I've attempted to link MWH to YEC only in the sense that it's age estimate would contradict what we currently observe, thus coherence between the two theories is found.


" if we ... are merely random fluctuations, then the entire basis on which we conclude about the universe around [us] is removed ... as everything we know about it is based upon our memories, which could, themselves, merely be a result of random fluctuations"

Con has clearly misunderstood the many worlds theory (albeit it's not the easiest of subjects). He shouldn't think of the random fluctuations as accidents within a world or universe, but rather it is the fluctuation within the global equilibrium that gives rise to a big bang itself. See this picture for a good visual,



http://www.debate.org...


So it's not that we would believe the universe is an illusion, rather it's that the age of the universe has a higher probability of being very young compared to the age estimate we currently and actually have. Since if our world is just a chance fluctuation from a state of overall equilibrium, then we ought to be observing a much smaller region of order, because a small fluctuation from equilibrium is vastly more probable than the huge, sustained fluctuation necessary to create the universe we see. (See Boltzmann paper)


I also hope Con doesn't think Boltzmann's brains are actual human brains! (It would be almost comical if he did.) But I can't help but wonder with a comment like,


"With Boltzmann's brains in effect, it isn't merely cosmological constants and fundamental values that are called into question it is everything anyone thinks they know."



I'll lend him an opportunity to clarify his position before I start on his contention one. (I understand the science talk can be confusing but I recommend looking over the papers once more.)




Contention 2
Now falsifiability is often used in science but such criteria isn't necessary. We have many scientific explanations that include other criteria other than falsifiability. Think of electrons for instance, half of all theoretical physics, the singularity, not to mention non-regularity historical events like geological events (like what I deal with as a geophysicist... mantle plumes aren't even falsifiable! ... Boy, I'd be out of a job)


Part of the problem of science is the demarcation problem. Karl Popper tried fixing this with his famous philosophy of science: verificationism. (Even Einstein bought into it...)
But verificationism collapsed back in the 1960's as a failed theory. (Although the effects seem to linger in sub-culture).


So far from being a fundamental part of science, falsification is only a very useful part of science which can help a researcher better weigh the theory. Nevertheless it certainly doesn't serve as a demarcation between science and non-science, as Amherst College philosopher Alexander George puts it,


"Science can be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data. No, for it's always possible to protect a theory from an apparently confuting observation"


Contention 3
Thus my basic resolution stands, the MWH, if true, would give us an illusion of age, thus lending support to young earth creationism. The support isn't a full support obviously since it doesn't prove God, or the universe took exactly 6 days to form, etc. Rather MWH supports YEC only in it's claim to an illusion of age.


Furthermore it doesn't matter how a scientific theory comes about. I can read on the back of a cracker jack box that weak dehydration melting yields a hypersthene inosilicate. I can later conduct research and find out if the cracker box was right. A scientist will consult all she knows in justifying a theory.


Thus the fact that YEC emerged as a theory from the Bible doesn't do anything to put it off par from being an idea capable of receiving support from other theories. Such an assumption is simply wrong headed. Nevertheless the truth or falsity or coherence of such theories remain a scientific question, not theological questions. Even if it's a bad theory, that doesn't entail that it can't receive support from other independent theories (albeit less plausible ones as well).


Finally, the dramatized conclusion that everything we know should be cast out is equally wrong headed and implies that Con should re-read the peer-reviewed papers I posted on the matter prior to rebutting. Plus "abandoning everything we know" would include our knowledge of MWH itself leaving us back at square one, and that's not my claim, it's much more modest then that.
drafterman

Con

Filtering through my opponent's borderline condescending argument, we can extract the following relevant pieces of information:

"I've attempted to link MWH to YEC only in the sense that it's age estimate would contradict what we currently observe, thus coherence between the two theories is found."

When I first read Pro's argument, I got the impression that he was deviating from the stated resolution and was merely suggesting that MWH supports YEC simply because MWH suggests that our estimates for the age of the universe are wrong, which is what YEC would require to be true. Sorry, but I don't buy this. Pro references a Bayesian approach, which implies that MWH, if accepted as evidence, makes YEC more likely to be true. That is, if we observe MWH to be true, then whatever value we place on the probability that YEC is true increases as a result.

Pro has not demonstrated this to be the case. The logic is simple, almost too simple.

If MWH is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates.
If YEC is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates.

To take these statements and then conclude:

If MWH is true, then YEC is more likely to be true.

Is a non-sequitor.

"[I]f our world is just a chance fluctuation from a state of overall equilibrium, then we ought to be observing a much smaller region of order, because a small fluctuation from equilibrium is vastly more probable than the huge, sustained fluctuation necessary to create the universe we see."

My opponent fails to apply this concept in full force. There is a correlation here between the size of the region of order and the probability in which it can arise. The smaller the region, the more likely it is. To support YEC, this region would have to be whatever size is necessary to be consistent with YEC age estimates. The problem is, according to this concept, it is possible (and more probable) for the size to be smaller than even this, thus contradicting YEC.

"Thus my basic resolution stands, the MWH, if true, would give us an illusion of age, thus lending support to young earth creationism. The support isn't a full support obviously since it doesn't prove God, or the universe took exactly 6 days to form, etc. Rather MWH supports YEC only in it's claim to an illusion of age."

The problem here is YEC makes no claims to any illusion. YEC doesn't say that the Earth is young but appears old. YEC says the Earth is young and appears to be young.

Now, to my Contentions.

Contention 1

This is addressed in my statements above and has not been refuted by my opponent. It is not enough to merely call into question our estimates for the age of the Earth. My opponent needs to demonstrate that MWH shows that the age estimates are more likely to be those required YEc, while recognizing that YEC has lower limits. Limits for YEC range from 6 thousand to 10 thousand years. Is this range special to MWH? Would MWH not be more support for Last Thursdayism than for YEC?

Contention 2

Even if falsifiability doesn't permeate all of science (debatable) it nevertheless exists. Wherever it exists is an implicit concession that what we know could be wrong. Since my opponent is referencing a scientific hypotheosis that would call into question our age estimates for the Earth, he concedes that those estimates are falsifiable. Whether or not falsifiability applies to mantle plumes is a gross red herring. Since the age estimates for Earth are falsifiable, then that alone is a statement that they could be wrong.

Thus, MWH is not unique or special in suggesting that they could be wrong in someway, just in what manner they could be wrong, which is outside the scope of debate. As such, one need not invoke MWH to "support" YEC in this sense, one only need invoke the falsifiability of those age estimates. Since MWH adds nothing to the equation here, it is not appropriate to single MWH out as "supporting" YEC.

Contention 3

Allow me to restate this in another way:

If we exist in some small region of space that exists as a random fluctuation with only the appearance of old age then then we must acknowledge that it isn't just the appearance of age which we must call into question. It is everything, including the Bible. Thus, rather than being some statement of fact about the universe, the Bible, arising out of a random fluctuation, is also an illusion, including its depiction of the universe and any YEC theories derived from it.

Debate Round No. 2
Reason_Alliance

Pro

Resolution
The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis


Key Premises
If our universe is but a small fleck in a world ensemble, then it's overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a tinier region of thermodynamic disequilibrium than we do.

MWH lends itself to the same type of bizarre illusionism YEC does; our biological, astronomical, geological age estimates would be wrong, giving the appearance of an old earth, while having a young age.

I've attempted to link MWH to YEC only in the sense that it's age estimate would contradict what we currently observe, thus coherence between the two theories is found.


Argument
I apologize if Con feels if I was being condescending, I wasn't intending so. It seemed to me my argument wasn't understood in the previous rebuttal, however. (Which is an honest mistake) Now I could be wrong so that's why I gave Con a decent opportunity to clarify his position before I take his last rebuttal seriously.


Con gives my argument in a helpful syllogism,

1) If MWH is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates.

2) If YEC is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates.

3) Therefore, if MWH is true, then YEC is more likely to be true.


Let's reformulate my argument more accurately,


1) Entropically, if MWH is true, then the local age estimates have a high probability of over-estimation.

2) Entropically, if YEC is true, then the local age estimates also have a high probability of over-estimation.

3) Therefore, the Multiverse Theory Supports (or coheres with) Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

(Some may observe the reformulated conclusion is the basically the resolution... which is a more modest and specific claim: unlike "if MWH is true, then YEC is more likely to be true.")


Of course Con thinks my argument is a non-sequitar; he thinks I'm arguing for the entire Young Earth Creationist account! Possibly including the flood narrative, two people (or early hominids) named Adam and Eve, a creepy snake that talks, etc.


But such a mis-characterization of my argument couldn't be farther from my modest claim that, paradoxically, MWH supports YEC's claim to a young universe. That's it!


All Con says is,

"To support YEC, this [universe] would have to be whatever size is necessary to be consistent with YEC age estimates. The problem is ... it is ... more probable for the size to be smaller than even this, thus contradicting YEC"


^Con thinks it's relevant the size of the universe. But that's irrelevant! Since both MWH and YEC are resultant in illusionism by virtue of comparison to our current observations!

Furthermore, I'm arguing for entropically-derived age. Thus Con has set up a squirrelly little red-herring for us. (It seems to me a sea fish can indeed have mammalian character traits, especially when nuts are involved).


Con goes on,


"YEC makes no claims to any illusion."

First, that's irrelevant too, since YEC needn't make an illusion claim. But we may surely see YEC's claim to a young universe as also claiming our age estimates as an illusion once we actually observe the age estimates we actually have (old age). So YEC doesn't have to claim anything about illusion, we just see an old age, but YEC claims a young one... some one is left saying: "This here's an illusion!"

Second, Con continues,

"YEC doesn't say that the Earth is young but appears old. YEC says the Earth is young and appears to be young."

Yes exactly, thus YEC has the Bible, some other (very minute) evidence of a young earth, and (oh!) coherence with other theories, namely the multi-verse! (All hail the resolution.)

Contention 1
I think we're beginning to see Con squirm his case here when he makes these demands,

"My opponent needs to demonstrate that MWH shows that the age estimates are more likely to be those required [by] YEC, while recognizing that YEC has lower limits. Limits for YEC range from 6 thousand to 10 thousand years. Is this range special to MWH? Would MWH not be more support for Last Thursdayism than for YEC?"

However, it seems to me that I don't at all need to show such specificity given the theory of a huge global multiverse that fluctuates and gives rise to universes that have, on average, a higher probability of forming a habitable universe yet with a very young age. Such a scale of age doesn't need to be known if we know generally young universes are favored over old ones... this is all that's needed to support YEC's claim to a young cosmos.

Contention 2
This contention is just so incoherent I don't even know why I'm touching on it. Even if this contention goes through, it doesn't follow that MWH doesn't support YEC with regard to wrong age estimates.

Further, and even more alarming, is that Con feels as if it's debatable that falsifiability doesn't permeate all of science. I directly challenge him to debate this within the contention! But I encourage him to tread softly and research "the demarcation problem of science" before finalizing his debate concerning Popper's science.

Con hasn't grasped the scope of the [MWH / YEC / Actual Age-Estimate] paradox yet. For he's arguing under contention two that the age's could be wrong given the current falsifiability of our age estimates. That's right, but how does this show MWH doesn't support YEC? He says,

"MWH is not unique or special in suggesting that they could be wrong in someway, just in what manner they could be wrong"

I'm sorry but this is just such a weak and scratching argument that to call it unintelligible would be an understatement. Even Con admits this is "outside the scope of debate." The fact is, MWH supports YEC's claim to a young universe. The two theories cohere when it comes to a relatively young age. It doesn't matter if our current ~13.7Ga age estimate could be a few 'Ma' off. The point is, MWH would yield a very young universe by comparison. And so supports YEC's claim to a very young universe.


Contention 3
I must say, even now Con has refused to understand MWH. Please realize objects themselves don't fluctuate into existence on the MWH. Rather it's a whole closed-system universe which fluctuates into existence from the global equilibrium. Con is completely missing the point when he contends,

" the Bible, arising out of a random fluctuation, is also an illusion"

^Don't you think physicists would promote a theory which at least doesn't have stuff like this apparent in their hypothesis? It's just the universe that fluctuates into existence, not any and every random object.

So contention 3 is just worthless, I literally can't respond to it other than to correct Con's misinterpretation. (Read the literature, I linked it so one can debate intellectually).

drafterman

Con

Pro's Argument:

1) Entropically, if MWH is true, then the local age estimates have a high probability of over-estimation.

2) Entropically, if YEC is true, then the local age estimates also have a high probability of over-estimation.

3) Therefore, the Multiverse Theory Supports (or coheres with) Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

The problem with Pro's argument is that he overgeneralizes both MWH and YEc and their conclusions.

MWH suggests that our estimates may be off in specific ways, for specific reasons.

YEC, while also suggesting that our estimates may be off, nevertheless does so in different specific ways and for different specific reasons.

MWH invokes probabilities based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, assigning probabilities to the actual age of the universe (younger universes being more probable than older ones).

YEC, references nothing about entropy and merely says: "God did it!" The age estimates for YEC are within a very specific range, relatively speaking, and are based upon descriptions of events as portrayed by the Bible. Nothing in MWH assigns any special value to this range or those events, so it is not appropriate to say that MWH supports YEC, in any shape, way, form, or capacity.

The only hope for Pro is to try and convince the readers that "cohere" is synonymous with "support." In this context, logical coherence simply means that they are consistent: that they do not contradict one another.

I will certainly concede that, regarding the vague and general statement: "The Earth is younger than current scientific estimates" both MWH and YEC are consistent and do not contradict each other.

Is it, however, acceptable to then translate this as support? I certainly hope Pro's argument doesn't boil down to mere word play. I, for one, refuse the bait and switch, hence my demands which, given the natural burden of proof assigned to the instigators of debates, is hardly out of the question. I find it odd that Pro would balk at this.

Contention 1

Here Pro basically denies having any sort of burden of proof and continues to ignore the fact that, when you delve into the specifics of regarding age estimates for MWH and YEC, the former most certainly does not support the latter.

Contention 2

Pro continues to miss the point here. Even the false resolution of coherence is dismissed. The very fact that the existing age estimates are falsifiable and (thus, may actually be much younger) "coheres" with YEC in the sense that it, too, allows that those estimates may actually be much younger.

This, then, leaves us the unanswered question: "What does MWH add to this equation such that it is appropriate to say that MWH supports YEC?"

The lack of answer here is telling.

Contention 3

Pro's objection here is bizarre, to say the least. The following sentence:

"It's just the universe that fluctuates into existence, not any and every random object."

Verges on nonsensical. If the universe fluctuates into existence, then so does each and every "random" object it contains! What else is the universe but the sum of the objects that comprise its existence! I find unfathomable that Pro would assert that the entire universe could fluctuate into existence, but not extend that to the objects inside the universe. If the objects themselves don't fluctuate into existence along with the universe, then what is Pro even talking about?

The rebuttal is nonsensical and should be dismissed. If the entire universe fluctuates into existence, then so does every individual thin contained within the universe, including the Bible.

The contention stands.

Summary

In the end, Pro's argument depends on ignoring specifics of MWH and YEC and conflating "cohere" with "support." While this was a valiant effort to draw some sort of connection between the two, the fact is, that connection falls appear under the merest scrutiny.

Pro's attempts to refute my contentions and to support his argument have merely relied on accusing me of not understanding the science and making false accusations about what I have and have not claimed. In the effort of clarity, I have ignored out-of-scope objections (again, what do mantle plumes have to do with anything?) and focused on the relevant points at hand. Regarding those, all my opponent can do is rail that I haven't understood him or the science, failing to actually provide refutations for my contentions.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Reason_Alliance 5 years ago
Reason_Alliance
Haha, thanks.. I'm new-
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
The voting period should have been longer. I really did appreciate the effort you two made. Reason_a, I didn't think you carried the day, but I have to admit, this was a fairly novel idea for an argument and I think you deserve some kudos.
Posted by Reason_Alliance 5 years ago
Reason_Alliance
Yeah, ya helped me out a lot Drafter... I hope you don't think I was actually condescending but I wanted you to understand the argument in a fuller form so you could help this 'new' paradox I'm working on. I just have to work on more precise age estimates rather than just assuming young universes I guess. Appreciate the insight. Now may the best debater win!
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
First: Great debate fellas, it was interesting. Here's my RFV:

Pro didn't support the resolution - all he showed is that illusion is possible. This is not the same thing as showing that the MWH actually supports YEC, Pro needed to give age ranges at the least, which he didn't do. I mean, let's say that the universe turns out to be 3 million years old. Yes, this is younger than what scientists currently think it is - but it is not young enough to support YEC, which as typically understood is something between 6-10k years old (if this is not the range that Pro estimates, then Pro further should have given an age range). In short, I agree with Con here: ""My opponent needs to demonstrate that MWH shows that the age estimates are more likely to be those required [by] YEC, while recognizing that YEC has lower limits. Limits for YEC range from 6 thousand to 10 thousand years. Is this range special to MWH? Would MWH not be more support for Last Thursdayism than for YEC?". Pro tries to evade this by saying that he doesn't have to because it's probable that the MWH creates habitable universes with a young age - but even if that's true, that doesn't lend support that it happened here and in the time requirements that Pro needs.

I would also agree with Con's statement "Pro's argument depends on ignoring specifics of MWH and YEC and conflating "cohere" with "support.""

I would say that Pro dealt with a lot of Con's arguments (some were dropped), but the primary contention was not successfully argued, IMO.

I gave conduct to Pro because of Con's remark about condescension, I didn't read it that way.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 5 years ago
Ixaax
Reason_AlliancedraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Not finished reading, going to go over everything again and re-cast my vote. By round two, Con subsequently addresses each of Pro's arguments, whereas Pro has no (clear) justification for YEC besides "little fluctuation=better chance," which con has refuted (so far). I'll recast later, just stating my understanding thus far. (Both have minor grammatical errors)
Vote Placed by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
Reason_AlliancedraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: In the comments