The Instigator
Omicron314
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
RainbowDash52
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Universe is ~13.8 Billion Years Old

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Omicron314
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 60062
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Omicron314

Pro

To whomever accepts this debate:

I. Round 1 will be for stating your argument, Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 will be for polite debate, with brief closing remarks made at the end of Round 5.

II. I expect the usage of reliable sources throughout this debate. Examples of reliable sources include textbooks, scientific lectures, .edu sites, and so on. Holy books are not reliable sources as all arguments based on them tend to be circular in nature.

III. We will not be debating how the Universe came into existence (although I'd happily debate anyone on that at a later time). We will only be debating the age of the Universe.

To voters: Please vote on the outcome of this debate purely on the arguments you see presented here, not on your personal beliefs. Thank you.

I now state my position: the Universe is many billions of years old, not thousands as some contend. There is a good deal of evidence supporting this argument, including the Cosmic Microwave Background, the observed recession velocity of distant galaxies, and the measured size of the observable Universe. I will explain each of these in more detail after my opponent states his/her intent to participate in the debate and his/her position.

Good luck!
RainbowDash52

Con

My position is that it is unknown how old the universe is, and that the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 billion years old is based off of flawed assumptions.

Since my opponent has burden of proof, I will be refuting my opponent"s claims in attempt to create reasonable doubt of the believed 13.8 billion year age of the universe. I will wait for my opponent to explain why his supposed evidence supports the 13.8 billion year age of the universe for me to have something to rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Omicron314

Pro

For Round 2, I will make two arguments: both of which stem from the laws of physics as we understand them.

The first argument I put forth pertains to the value of the Hubble constant. According to Hubble's Law, the recession velocity of distant objects is their distance times the Hubble constant - H0, about 71 (km/s)/Mpc (1a)(2). As distance and velocity have a linear correlation as per Hubble's Law, to figure out the age of the universe we must merely ask ourselves how long ago was every galaxy at the same point in space. Time is distance over velocity, and the velocity of galaxies is distance times the Hubble constant. The distances cancel, and we find that the time since the entire Universe was a point - the Big Bang - is 1 over the Hubble constant. The definition of a parsec translates into close to 3.9*10^13 km (1b), so 1/71 Mpc/(km/s) (which is 1/H0) is equivalent to 4.37 *10^17 seconds, or about 13.8 billion years.

The second argument I will make relates to the Cosmic Microwave Background. Firstly, we must understand that all objects emit electromagnetic radiation (1b), and the frequency of this radiation is dependent on temperature (1c). For example, humans emit infrared light as we are relatively cool, but hotter objects, like embers in a fire, glow in the visible spectrum. Secondly, apparent wavelength can be shifted if the source or the observer is moving relative to the medium through which the waves propagate. This is called the Doppler Effect, and is why a siren on an emergency vehicle sounds higher pitched when moving towards you and lower when moving away.
So, the CMB is the 'first light' of the Universe: the first electromagnetic radiation that was able to propagate through space. As the early universe was very very hot, this radiation had a very very short wavelength - close to the Planck length, the shortest divisible unit of space. The CMB is still around us today, too. We can measure its wavelength by finding the temperature objects naturally cool to in space, which turns out to be around 2.7 K (3) which, through Wien's Law (4), translates into a wavelength of 1.074*10^-3 meters. Using the equation for the Doppler Effect, lambda2=lambda1*((1+beta)/(1-beta))^.5 (4), combined with Hubble's Law, we find that the distance to the origin of the CMB is c(lambda2^2-lambda1^2)/H0(lambda2^2+lambda1^2). This translates into 4225 Mpc, or around 13.78 billion light-years. Because light travels 1 light-year per year (that is, after all, the definition of a light-year), we find that radiation first flooded the Universe 13.78 billion years ago, with the actual origin of the Universe not long before.

The correlation between these two described methods as well as other, more complicated, ways of determining the age of the Universe provides strong evidence, based purely on the fundamental laws of physics, for a 13.8 billion year old Universe.

Sources:
1. Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. Astronomy Today. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2014. Print.
a. page 620
b. page 68
c. page 70
2. Huchra, John. The Hubble Constant. Harvard University, 2008. Web. 8 Aug 2014.
3. The Cosmic Background Radiation. University of Tennessee, 10 Aug. 2000. Web. 8 Aug 2014.
4. Wien's Law. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 8 Aug 2014.
5. Relativistic Doppler Effect. Hyperphysics.edu, 5 Oct. 2010. Web. 8 Aug 2014.
RainbowDash52

Con

In order to calculate the age of the universe using Hubble"s law, red shift is used to measure the distance of distant cosmic objects. If red shift doesn"t accurately measure distance and velocity we don"t have an accurate measurements to calculate the age of the universe. There are problems with the idea that red shift correlates linearly with velocity and distance. It can"t be known if something is naturally red or only red because it is travelling quickly away from you. There is also evidence to strongly suggest that red shift doesn"t correlate with distance and velocity, including several examples of high red shift quasars being clustered together with low red shift galaxies indicating that the quasars are actually nearby with the galaxy different from what the red shift suggests [1]. And if red shift doesn"t accurately measure distance and velocity as this information suggests, then the age of the universe can"t be accurately measured with Hubble"s law since we don't know the distance to the edges of the universe.

My opponent states "Firstly, we must understand that all objects emit electromagnetic radiation" I ask if everything emits electromagnetic radiation, then how do we know that the CMB is from the big bang when it could have been from anything else? Until my opponent gives a reason, it is an unproven assumption. And if the CMB is not from the Big Bang, then it can"t be used to calculate the age of the universe.

Also if my opponent wishes to continue to use the Big Bang in his arguments, I request my opponent proves that the Big Bang happened instead of just assuming it did.

[1] http://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 2
Omicron314

Pro

Firstly, I think it is important to note that science can never 'prove' anything, as one experiment can overturn any theory. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Earth being round are nothing more than really well-supported theories. It is exceedingly improbable that anyone will ever come up with a contrary theory, but none of them have been proven. This is an important misconception many have of the scientific method, and ought to be addressed.

Now, the argument my opponent is making stems from research done by scientists such as M.B. Bell that suggests that other scientists do not understand the nature of the redshift of the distant quasars (1). However, there have been surveys that produce results that directly contradict Bell's model of intrinsic redshift (2). Nevertheless, we still see a linear correlation between distance and cosmological redshift in all non-gravitationally bound objects, not just quasars, and it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that earlier galaxies would be intrinsically redder. A large amount of blue light (from O and B type stars) emanating from a galaxy is seen as a sign of rapid star formation (3a). As the early universe was more matter-dense than now (3b), one would expect a higher rate of star formation and thus, bluer galaxies. In addition, very distant galaxies are so redshifted they glow entirely in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (4). As not even the dimmest stars glow entirely in infrared, the only explanation is that they are cosmologically redshifted into that part of the spectrum. And as we see this cosmological redshift in all directions and to the same extent with respect to distance (this was noted by Edwin Hubble 100 years ago, after all), there is no reason to think Hubble's Law is incorrect.

I will now address my opponent's concern that the Big Bang never actually occurred. There are many reasons why cosmologists believe the Universe began as a singularity and expanded from that point (Wikipedia has a large section on Observational Evidence in its Big Bang article), but there are two simple, clear indicators. One, the galaxies are rushing away from us. The fact that this is occurring combined with the fact that the relationship is linear in nature leads cosmologists to believe that space itself is expanding. Thus, it is only logical to assume that, in the past, the Universe was smaller, so, extrapolating backwards, there must have been a point where the universe was infinitely small and expanded from there. This leads me to my second point: the recent discovery of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica. The discovery of these gravitational waves exactly match the prediction made by the inflationary model of the expansion of the Universe, and provide strong evidence for the Big Bang theory (5). The Cosmic Microwave Background is also one of the strongest supports for said model, but as my opponent is skeptical as to its reliability, I will instead defend it.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is interesting because it emanates from everywhere in the sky almost perfectly uniformly (3c). There is no known object that could produce this observed effect, as such an object would have to be as large as the Universe itself. Other origins for the signal have been proposed, but all credit it to terrestrial interferences (3c). However, we know the signal is not terrestrial in nature as satellites (such as COBE) orbiting well above the Earth detect the exact same signal (3d). So, I think my opponent's proposition that the CMB could have been from 'anything else' makes little sense given the nature of the signal.

As I said before, the CMB also provides good evidence for the Big Bang theory. The CMB is in a sense, an 'explosion' of light throughout the entire Universe, caused by the plasma permeating the early Universe ceasing to absorb its own radiation (3c). This would only be possible if the medium of plasma was much denser than it is currently. However, plasma (and all other forms of matter) are just energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed (as per the conservation of energy). Thus, the Universe must have been smaller in the past and must have expanded into its present state, and if we go back far enough, we reach a time when the Universe was infinitely small.

However, the methods previously discussed are not the only ways scientists can determine the age of the Universe. Scientists can also use the radioactive decay of elements such as rhenium into osmium (which yields an age estimate for the Universe between 11 and 17 billion years), the thorium content of old stars (which yields an age estimate for the Universe between 11.5 and 16.5 billion years), the distribution of stars in globular clusters on Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams (which yields an age estimate for the oldest globular clusters around 11 billion years), and measuring the latent heat remaining in old white dwarves in the old globular cluster M4 (which yields an age estimate for the oldest white dwarves between 12 and 13.5 billion years) (6).

I must ask my opponent exactly by how much he/she thinks the actual age of the Universe deviates from the age of the Universe determined by cosmologists. 100 million years? 1 billion? 10 billion? Knowing this will be useful for me in understanding exactly where my opponent is coming from in his/her arguments. Nevertheless, every piece of evidence from many different lines of research indicate that the Universe is around 14 billion years old.

Sources:
1. http://iopscience.iop.org...
2. http://arxiv.org...
3. Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. Astronomy Today. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2014. Print.
a. page 609
b. page 691
c. page 683
d. page 684
4. 'JWST Vital Statistics.' NASA, n.d. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.
5. Eller, Cynthia. 'BICEP2 Discovers First Direct Evidence of Inflation and Primordial Gravitational Waves.' Caltech Univeristy,
17 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.
6. Wright, Edward L. 'Age of the Universe.' University of California, Los Angeles, 27 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.
RainbowDash52

Con

The evidence that quasars are connected to galaxies is much more than just the amount of times quasars appear near galaxies. There are visible connections between galaxies and quasars despite some scientists ignoring them [1]. So there are reasons to doubt that red shift correlates with distance.

My opponent's argument for the big bang also relies the idea that galaxies are moving away from each other, which relies on the idea that red shift accurately measures speed. So as long as the validity of red shift measuring speed and distance is questionable, so is the Big Bang theory.

As for the cosmic microwave background, there is way too much interference from the galactic center to accurately measure the cosmic microwave background [2]. Thus it can't be reliable enough to get an accurate age since the Big Bang, even if the Big Bang did happen.

My opponent claims that radioactive decay can be used to measure the age of the universe, but radioactive decay is not constant [3] so it can't be used to accurately measure the age of the universe.

As for how old I believe the universe is, I really don't know. I don't think there is strong enough evidence to conclude that the universe is any specific age. It could be anywhere from 100 million years to 100 quadrillion years for all I know. I think it is astonishing that scientists admit that a majority of the universe is made of this dark matter they know nothing about and that most energy is dark energy they don't understand, but yet they claim to understand the universe well enough to know its age with 3 significant figures of accuracy.

[1] http://youtu.be...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
[3] https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Omicron314

Pro

There is absolutely no question that redshift correlates with speed: it simply stems from a Doppler Effect. Imagine a source that emits a wave, such as a sound. If the source is at rest, the wavelength will be constant (i.e. the distance between Wave A being emitted and Wave B being emitted is the same as the distance between Wave B and Wave C, and so on). However, if the source is moving, the wavelength will be contracted in front of the source and expanded behind it (i.e. the source emits Wave A, but it moves a bit before emitting Wave B, so in the direction of motion, there is less distance between the two waves, and more opposite the direction of motion). This is illustrated in the following diagram:



There is no doubt this occurs: just go outside and listen to an ambulance or police car go by and notice how the pitch of the sound seems higher in pitch (shorter wavelength) when it is coming towards you and lower in pitch (longer wavelength) when moving away from you. It is also very easy to deduce that the amount by which the wavelength is altered in the direction of motion depends on both the speed of the wave and the speed of the source. Just imagine what happens if the source of the waves is moving as fast as the waves themselves: the waves would never get in front of the source.

Light can behave as both a particle and a wave (1), so there is no reason for the Doppler effect to not apply for light as well. Just as a sound source moving towards or away from you sounds higher or lower pitched, a light source moving towards or away from you will appear bluer or redder. This requires no unbelievable assumptions, and the mathematics are relatively simple. Thus, the correlation between redshift and velocity is clear.

We see no distant galaxies that are blueshifted, indicating motion towards us, which is very strange. This can be explained without violating the Copernican principle by the proposition that space itself is expanding (this would create the same perception of all the galaxies rushing away from you no matter where you are in the Universe). There are few explanations that do not require the Big Bang. I can think of one or two but they violate the Copernican principle and the odds of each scenario being observed the way we see it are one in billions, if not trillions: hardly likely enough to cast a 'reasonable doubt' on the Big Bang theory. I encourage my opponent to propose an model that would create the perception of no blueshifted galaxies for a reasonable fraction of galaxies in the Universe: the existence of such an alternative (assuming it does not assume our galaxy/the Local Group occupy a privileged position in the Universe) would be satisfactory for creating a 'reasonable doubt' of the Big Bang, but I remind my opponent that is not what we are debating.

As for my opponent's concerns about the effects of the center of the galaxy (which is a strong radio source (2)) on measurements of the CMB, the solution is truly simple: wait until the Earth is between the galactic center and your detector and then take your measurements. Radio waves are relatively easy to block (have you ever tried listening to the radio in a deep tunnel?): a 12800-kilometer thick planet can surely do the job. When the Earth is between the source and the detector, a region where the interference does not exist is created around the detector, just as when the Earth is between an observer and the Sun (in other words, night), no light from the source is visible.

A sidenote: the blackbody curve is a great approximation for most absorbers/emitters (3), and the CMB is no exception. Looking into the 'scientist' you referenced in your second source, his 'theory' is largely built on tearing down that basis. However, the theory of blackbody radiation stems from conservation of energy, so his work is based on trying to disprove the conservation of energy, the basis of all physics. That is generally a big red flag.

My opponent's final concern is that radioactive decay is not constant. The video he cited was interesting enough, but I don't think the results the video announced (be them legitimate or not " the video seems rather sketchy) alter the validity of rhenium/osmium dating. According to the video, the variation - if it even exists at all - is periodic and miniscule. Thus the currently accepted half-life for rhenium is almost certainly close enough to the average decay rate that results taking the alleged variations into account would not yield a significantly different estimate than it currently does.

There are a variety of methods by which similar estimates for the age of the Universe can be obtained, and they all operate on well-understood physics and mathematics. Given the remarkable coincidence of estimates and the fact that they are all derived completely differently leaves me unconvinced that we are missing something in our understanding of physics that is skewing any one estimate.

Sources:
1. Davidson, Michael. 'Light: Particle or a Wave?' Florida State University, 1 Aug. 2003. Web. 14 Aug. 2014.
2. 'A Mystery in the Galactic Center.' NASA, 21 Feb. 2002. Web. 14 Aug. 2014.
3. Fowler, Michael. 'Black Body Radiation.' University of Virginia. 7 Sep. 2008. Web. 14 Aug. 2014.
RainbowDash52

Con

My opponent fails to understand that I am arguing for the idea of intrinsic red shift, not that there is no red shift due to the Doppler Effect. The Doppler Effect does not disprove intrinsic red shift theory. And as I have explained, High red shift quasars being next to and having a visible connection with low red shift galaxies strongly suggest that they are at the same distance, and that the high red shift quasar is really a smaller intrinsically red shifted object near the galaxy, which demonstrates that some objects are intrinsically red shifted, thus you can"t determine the distance and velocity of a stellar object just by its red shift, because you don"t know how much red shift is intrinsic and how much is caused by the Doppler Effect. And since the distance and speed of stellar objects is what is used to determine the universe is 13.8 billion years old, then we can"t conclude the age of the universe.

My opponent claims that we see no distant galaxies blue shifted. The reason scientist believe that there are no distant galaxies that are blue shifted is because scientists determine the distance of a galaxy by how red shifted it is. Scientists assume that we can determine the distance of a galaxy by its red shift. Arguing that there are no distant blue shifted galaxies based off of the assumption that red shift correlates with distance because of Hubble"s law, in order to give confirmation to Hubble"s law is begging the question.

My opponent states "As for my opponent's concerns about the effects of the center of the galaxy (which is a strong radio source (2)) on measurements of the CMB, the solution is truly simple: wait until the Earth is between the galactic center and your detector and then take your measurements" I would like a source showing that this method is what is used to accurately measure the CMB. If you only measure CMB when the Earth is in between the center of the milky way galaxy and the measurement, you can"t measure CMB on the other side of the Earth that has the galactic center, but scientists claim they know that the CMB is uniform throughout the entire universe, not just the parts of the universe we can accurately measure.

And for radioactive decay measuring the age of the universe, even assuming that variation of rate of radioactive decay is minimal throughout the history of the universe, the age range my opponent gave in round 3 for the age of the universe using radioactive decay was between 11.5 and 16.5 billion years, although somewhat indicative, is not accurate enough to conclude 13.8 billion years.

As for my opponent"s claims of "the remarkable coincidence of estimates and the fact that they are all derived completely differently", it is not a coincidence; scientists choose to only share with the public the results that are consistent. If scientists go against the flow showing results that contradict mainstream science, they risk getting ridiculed by other scientists and losing funding.
Debate Round No. 4
Omicron314

Pro

Firstly I will say that I misunderstood my opponent when he claimed that redshift does not correlate with speed. While my opponent meant 'of astronomical objects,' I interpreted that as 'of all objects.' No one, however, is doubting the validity of the Doppler Effect.

However, my little mistake does not validate Halton Arp's hypotheses about intrinsic redshift and quasars being ejected from galaxies and all: his work has never been published in a reputable source and there exists evidence against his claims. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (which is publicly available), Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang tested the predictions made by Arp's hypotheses (1). As the paper is a bit technical and I have only a basic understanding of astrophysics in general, I am admittedly not entirely sure what their procedure was, although it is my understanding that the SDSS data fit the currently accepted model for quasars much better the two leading intrinsic redshift models. Nevertheless, the last sentence of their abstract could not be clearer: Arp's theory doesn't work.

This is how the scientific method operates. Someone comes up with a theory, which makes certain predictions. Those predictions are then tested by experimentally-obtained data. If the predictions don't match the data, there is no reason to believe the theory is true. Intrinsic redshift has failed this test. Thus, I think my opponent's intrinsic redshift argument is invalid: Hubble's Law holds and points to a 13.8 billion year old Universe.

My opponent also is very concerned about possible contaminations in the CMB. These certainly do exist, the most prominent of which is due to the redshift of the CMB due to Earth's motion through space (2). Due to this, we perceive the CMB to be:

CMB (3)

However, there are ways to filter out both the redshift and the galaxy. The redshift can be easily mathematically corrected, but the galaxy is a bit harder. However, it is possible, and can be done by measuring the angular power spectrum of the sky not contaminated by the galaxy and using that to figure out which part of the radiation is coming from the galaxy and which from the CMB. (4). Angular power spectra themselves are too complicated to explain here, but included below this argument is a good reference I found whilst doing research for this debate for those who are interested.

And while you are right in that we cannot infer a 13.8 billion year old Universe from the larger range supported by radioactive dating, we know the age of the Universe is not outside that boundary so long as that method remains valid. This lends credence to the more precise methods of determining the age of the Universe which all point to around 13.8 billion years old (whether you doubt their validity or not), such as the CMB, Hubble's Law, and the size of the observable Universe (which we have not discussed as it is a bit more conceptually complicated than simply how far we can see).

My opponent's last argument was that information is being concealed from the public by the scientific community. Firstly, my opponent has absolutely no evidence of such a thing occurring (although it has happened in the past). Secondly, rejecting the entirety of the Big Bang theory is a very big claim to make, and as such requires much evidence. If someone found ample evidence that the Big Bang theory was incorrect (which Halton Arp did not " see above), it would win the researcher worldwide recognition. The scientists that proposed ideas that turned out to be right (such as Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift) were initially rejected as they lacked proper evidence, which was later obtained.

My closing argument will recap what has been said throughout this debate. So, why do almost all cosmologists say the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? Let's start with the less contentious, but less precise methods. Firstly, we look at the amount of rhenium that has decayed into osmium here on Earth, and through simple algebra, we find that the Universe is between 11 and 17 billion years old. We can get a slightly more refined estimate by looking at the amount of thorium in old stars using the same method. This argument falls apart only if our understanding of nuclear physics is severely flawed, as even if radioactive decay rates vary periodically as my opponent contends, the result is hardly changed. More precise methods of determining the age of the Universe only further support this. There is, of course, the redshift of the CMB, caused by the stretching-out of light as the Universe expands. My opponent has stated his contention to this concept, but research has been done on the exact claim he makes, revealing the results he claims creates doubt of redshift's correlation with distance and the Big Bang theory are consistent with the current understanding of cosmology " their purported evidence is invalid. There is also Hubble's Law, which relies on the same principle. Combining Hubble's Law with the basic definition for velocity and doing a bit of algebraic manipulation results in a very, very similar age estimate: 13.8 billion years.

It is also fitting to mention the size of the observable universe. It is not 13.8 billion light-years in radius, but correcting for the accelerating expansion of the Universe, we find that the light from the farthest objects we can see was emitted 13.8 billion years ago. (5) This stems from the speed of light in a vacuum being constant, which has been experimentally verified many times over (and cosmological redshift of course, but as we have said, intrinsic redshift is a flawed theory).

So, in order for all the evidence pointing towards a 13.8 billion year old Universe to be invalid, we would have to have misunderstood the theory of blackbody radiation, cosmological redshift, the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, the speed of light, and many other well-understood astronomical laws. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' as astronomer Carl Sagan used to say, and denying so many known phenomena is certainly an extraordinary claim. My opponent has not provided much reliable evidence other than outright denying the validity of the cosmologists' methodology, and thus my opponent has failed to create a reasonable doubt of the scientifically-estimated age of the Universe.

Angular Power Spectrum Explanation:
http://cosmoquest.org...

Sources:
1. http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
2. Wright, Edward L. 'Cosmic Microwave Background.' University of California, Los Angeles, 24 Oct. 2009. Web. 20 Aug.
2014.
3. 'Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background.' Wilkonson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. NASA, n.d. Web. 20 Aug.
2014.
4. Baccigalupi, Carlo. 'Cosmic Microwave Background.' Transregional Collaborative Research Centre TRR 33, n.d. PDF file.
5. Halpern, Paul. 'How Large is the Observable Universe?' Nova. PBS, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 20 Aug. 2014.
RainbowDash52

Con

My opponent source [1] attempted to discredit intrinsic red shift theory. The abstract states that the amount of observed quasars that appear near a galaxy is expected in a random sample, which is opposing to my argument of the frequency of quasars appear near galaxies, but it does not address the observations that have been made of Quasars having visible connections with galaxies that I sourced earlier. My opponent only countered the weaker evidence of the frequency of quasars next to galaxies, but not the stronger evidence of quasars having visible connections with a galaxies. All of my opponent"s argument rely on Hubble"s law, but my opponent has not refuted my evidence showing visible connections between high red shift quasars and low red shift galaxies which contradicts Hubble"s law. This is enough to create reasonable doubt of the 13.8 billion year age of the universe.

"Angular power spectra themselves are too complicated to explain here" (opponent"s quote) is not a valid argument.

"My opponent's last argument was that information is being concealed from the public by the scientific community. Firstly, my opponent has absolutely no evidence of such a thing occurring" (opponent"s quote) my job is to provide reasonable doubt since my opponent has BoP. People aren"t perfectly honest, and often withhold information when it conveniences them. Since scientists are human, they can have the same problems, thus it is reasonable.

"If someone found ample evidence that the Big Bang theory was incorrect (which Halton Arp did not " see above), it would win the researcher worldwide recognition" (opponent"s quote) That is the equivalence of saying if someone found ample evidence that Christianity was incorrect, all Christians would denounce their religion and that person would be famous.

So in summary, I gave reasonable doubt of Hubble"s law which results in reasonable doubt of the 13.8 billion year age of the universe.

[1] http://adsabs.harvard.edu... (opponent"s source)
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
That vote: "...it's possible that ninjas did it and set the man up in a flash. But that's not something a defense attorney's going to bring up for reasonable doubt..." R Kelly's defense basically argued that the time he filmed himself raping an underage girl.
Posted by Omicron314 2 years ago
Omicron314
RainbowDash52, I accept your proposal. The topic of the debate has been slightly modified as you requested. I look forward to an enjoyable debate!
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
Although I highly doubt the Earth is 6000 years old, I am also skeptical of the claim that it is about 14 billion years old (what 'scientists' claim the age of the universe is). If you change the debate topic to "the universe is 14 billion years old" I would debate against that.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Actually, the Universe doesn't have to be thousands of years old according to Young Earth Creationism. Only life on Earth (and perhaps life on other planets) needs to be.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
You are probably waiting for a silly right-wing pseudo Christian to debate you. The 6,000 year claim is false according to science and The Bible.
Science - 12,000,000,000 years old
Bible - 12,000 years since ascension of Adam and Eve to 12,000,000,000 years since creation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Omicron314RainbowDash52Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's rebuttals were all the same (scientists have inconsistent data but don't show it) and put very minimal doubt in pro's large evidence.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Omicron314RainbowDash52Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A find job from both sides! Fundamentally, Con's arguments for an intrinsic red shift were unsupported supposition. The problem Con had was trying to go against the meshing of all of the evidence to lead to the same conclusion--and the only answer he had for THAT was the unsupported notion that scientists are keeping inconsistent data "secret". If the best you have is an appeal to conspiracy, it's unlikely you have much of a case--or reasonable doubt. I mean, if someone's caught with the murder weapon, blood spatter and powder residue on their hands, and a dead body at their feet, it's possible that ninjas did it and set the man up in a flash. But that's not something a defense attorney's going to bring up for reasonable doubt. Con's evidence-less assertion is uncompelling. Arguments to Pro. Sources to Pro as well--he had more, and more reliable, sources that supported him. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.