The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
diety
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

The universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old.

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 6 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,851 times Debate No: 8153
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

mongeese

Con

I negate the resolution that the universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old.

Universe - 1. the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Concretely proven - This basically is supposed to mean that the statement MUST be true. There is no logical way for it to be false. There is a 100% chance that it is true; there are no other possibilities. A man would be willing to stake his life on the validity of the statement, given that all scientific evidence used is true, over something minor, being absolutely sure of its truth.
3 billion years old - Having existed for at least 3,000,000,000 years old (a year being the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun)

My opponent will be the one with the burden of proof, as he or she will have to show some undiscardable evidence to the age of the universe, and be able to defend them from my attacks.

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
diety

Pro

It's payback time.

:)

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

Yeah, that's what happens when you try to play the burden of proof card with me. Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend.

:)

Anyway, to prove my arguments, the universe must be older than the objects within it. Since I'm 15, the universe is atleast 15 years old.

As for this debate, the Earth is already 4.6 billion years old, so that already proves that the resolution is affirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That'll do for now.

:)
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

"Yeah, that's what happens when you try to play the burden of proof card with me. Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend."
When you accept my debate, you must abide by the rules that I laid out in the first round. One rule was that you carry the burden of proof, because it is necessary to fit the resolution properly.

"Anyway, to prove my arguments, the universe must be older than the objects within it. Since I'm 15, the universe is atleast 15 years old."
True.

"As for this debate, the Earth is already 4.6 billion years old, so that already proves that the resolution is affirmed."
Your source only claims that the Earth was dated to be 4.6 billion years old. However, these tests are not known for their accuracy, and they are not entirely sure of this date.

I decided to do some of the dirty work for you in checking the source Wikipedia used for its claim: http://www.sciencemag.org...
"A major outstanding question in the Earth sciences is whether the volume of continental crust today represents nearly all that formed over Earth's history or whether its rates of creation and destruction have been approximately balanced since the Archean."
Basically, they assumed that Earth has had constant cycles since its creation, which may or may not have been true, so they are going off of assumption when they give the date of 4.6 billion years.
"Analysis of neodymium isotopic data from the oldest remnants of Archean crust suggests that crustal recycling is important and that preserved continental crust comprises fragments of crust that escaped recycling. Furthermore, the data suggest that the isotopic evolution of Earth's mantle reflects progressive eradication of primordial heterogeneities related to early differentiation."
See the word "suggest"? Not "prove," or "ascertain," but "suggest." This is not "concretely proven," and is thus irrelevant.

"That'll do for now."
That was then, THIS is now.

Thank you for your attempts; now you have to make some more.

":)"
(:
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

All arguments extended.

Wikipedia is not concrete proof.
diety

Pro

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

:)

First of all, stop copying my smiley face as it's annoying and immature. Second of all, you don't have any evidence to COUNTERACT my arguments, you just keep whining about how we can't be 100% sure. Show me how my evidence is fallable otherwise I out to win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Con

Your Wikipedia article says:
"Current theory and observations suggest that this is between 13.5 and 14 billion years."
The word "suggest" puts a real damper on attempt to use this as concrete evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
We calculate the distance of objects in space (at least, this object) using the Red Shift. The formula for determining the distance based on the value of the Red Shift was determined using data from experiments on Earth.
"If found, these features can be compared with known features in the spectrum of various chemical compounds found in experiments where that compound is located on earth." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
This DOES NOT account for the possibility of dark matter in the universe interfering with Red Shift calculations made with objects in space, especially a supposed 13 billion light-years worth of dark matter. Dark matter has had numerous hypothetical effects on many things we have discovered in space; Red Shift could very easily be one of them. As long as space remains a mystery, so will the authenticity of Red Shift dating.

Another explanation: http://www.creationscience.com...
"Historical Measurements. During the past 300 years, at least 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published. Sixteen different measurement techniques were used. Astronomer Barry Setterfield of Australia has studied these measurements, especially their precision and experimental errors. His results show that the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error cannot explain it! In the seven instances where the same scientists remeasured the speed of light with the same equipment years later, a decrease was always reported. The decreases were often several times greater than the reported experimental errors. I have conducted other analyses that weight (or give significance to) each measurement according to its accuracy. Even after considering the wide range of accuracies, it is hard to see how one can claim, with any statistical rigor, that the speed of light has remained constant."
"No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant. Many simply assume that it is constant, and of course, changing old ways of thinking is sometimes difficult. Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii, at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, is also questioning some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero! Furthermore, he attributed the cosmic microwave background radiation and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light. Setterfield reached the same conclusion concerning redshifts by a different method. If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory will fall (with a big bang).
Other cosmologists are proposing an enormous decay in the speed of light. Several of their theoretical problems with the big bang theory are solved if light once traveled millions of times faster."
If the speed of light has been slowing down, then anything 13 billion light-years away very well may be only a few thousand years old, with an increased speed of light explaining how the light may have reached Earth from 13 billion light-years away in such quick time.

The entire article goes on to disprove many "evidences" for the universe being billions of years old. Good read.

":)"
(:

"First of all, stop copying my smiley face as it's annoying and immature."
That would only make sense if you assume that compiling a text smiley face is annoying and immature in the first place.

"Second of all, you don't have any evidence to COUNTERACT my arguments, you just keep whining about how we can't be 100% sure."
That's all I need to do.
In the first round, I said:
"My opponent will be the one with the burden of proof, as he or she will have to show some undiscardable evidence to the age of the universe, and be able to defend them from my attacks."
It was agreed in this thread (http://www.debate.org...) by just about every person that either PRO has burden of proof, or if the Instigator sets up a debate in which he sets a rule that the Contender will have BoP, and the Contender accepts the debate, then the Contender will have BoP.

"Show me how my evidence is fallable otherwise I out to win this debate."
I gave reason for it to possibly be fallible, which is all I need to say that we can't say something with 100% certainty. Also, anything that "suggests" something does not "prove" something. It only allows for the possibility of something.

Anyways, I will present an argument, if you're so insistent.
http://www.icq.com...
Evolutionists predicted about a mile of dust to have accumulated on the surface of the Moon over billions of years. It was proven that there was much less dust on the moon than any evolutionist scientist had predicted; Creation scientists, however, got it right.

"Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the 'origins question' behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence."
This quote basically defines my argument.

So, in conclusion, every piece of evidence for an old universe has a hole, whether it be inconsistency in light speed, dark matter, or a test that only "suggests" rather than "proves." Vote CON.
diety

Pro

This is why I have won this debate.

My opponent's rebuttals where all hypothetical and some of them originated from a biased source.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We don't even know if dark matter exists, it's just hypothetical, so screw your whole redshift argument.

"Another explanation: http://www.creationscience.com......
"Historical Measurements. During the past 300 years, at least 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published. Sixteen different measurement techniques were used. Astronomer Barry Setterfield of Australia has studied these measurements, especially their precision and experimental errors. His results show that the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error cannot explain it! In the seven instances where the same scientists remeasured the speed of light with the same equipment years later, a decrease was always reported. The decreases were often several times greater than the reported experimental errors. I have conducted other analyses that weight (or give significance to) each measurement according to its accuracy. Even after considering the wide range of accuracies, it is hard to see how one can claim, with any statistical rigor, that the speed of light has remained constant."
"No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant. Many simply assume that it is constant, and of course, changing old ways of thinking is sometimes difficult. Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii, at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, is also questioning some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero! Furthermore, he attributed the cosmic microwave background radiation and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light. Setterfield reached the same conclusion concerning redshifts by a different method. If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory will fall (with a big bang).
Other cosmologists are proposing an enormous decay in the speed of light. Several of their theoretical problems with the big bang theory are solved if light once traveled millions of times faster."
If the speed of light has been slowing down, then anything 13 billion light-years away very well may be only a few thousand years old, with an increased speed of light explaining how the light may have reached Earth from 13 billion light-years away in such quick time."
"Christian Science"

http://www.creationscience.com......

Pfeh. These guys literally think the world was only a few thousand years old. Yeah your source is pretty *cough* unreliable.

Anyway, the speed of light is a physical constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If it wasn't then the whole universe would screw up. Ever heard of Albert Einstein's equation E=mc2? Well, the speed of light is c and if that changes then mass/energy conversion would change. If light speed were to have been slowing than all of the stars in the universe would have been putting off less and less energy.

Even if everything was 100% perfect and mass energy equivalence didn't screw up, wouldn't slower moving light mean that the star is older? If light is traveling slowly, then... It would take longer for it to reach us wouldn't it? So the light we are seeing would come from things that are MUCH older. See, a contradiction in your case, and I'm not even a rocket scientist.

Also, what about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

See, the object is more than 13 billion light years away making it 13 billion years old, and if light was moving slower that would mean it was even older.

Anyway, all of your rebuttals are hypothetical and biased. I'm the only guy who provided real evidence here.

Vote Pro

"":)"
(:""

:)

And get your own style.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
B/A CON
S/G Tied
Conduct CON, PRO forfeited a round
Arguments CON
Sources TIED
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Would have given points to CON if I could still vote.
Posted by leet4A1 8 years ago
leet4A1
"Who said, "Never read a book in my life?""

Obviously the person I was quoting, 'thisoneguy'.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
However, one wrench disables a 100% assertion.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
The content of this debate aside, there is really no reason to question the estimates of the Earth's age by scientists: 4.6 B years. You can try and throw a wrench in the theory, like the wrenches that have been thrown at evolution, but there is one problem. It is one thing to question a theory; it is another to replace it. You could say that perhaps our idea of a 4.6 B old Earth is wrong, but you could NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS come up with a theory that even holds a candle to the one we have now, unless you were merely making a slight correction to the current theory. The only way you could hope to replace the theory is to invoke the supernatural; this is simply laughable.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Who said, "Never read a book in my life?"

'Nuff said.
Posted by leet4A1 8 years ago
leet4A1
"NASA proved that the moon is only 6,000 years old, this was done by measuring the depth of dust particles on the moons surface, (2 foot deep), do your research and find this out for yourself."

"never read a book in my life"

'Nuff said.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
PRO did not meet burden of proof and simply said that CON had it. CON effectively showed how the evidence is not concrete and PRO weakly responded.

ARGUMENTS: CON
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend."

Actually, with a quick glance at the resolution, PRO has BOP.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"Anyway, all of your rebuttals are hypothetical and biased. I'm the only guy who provided real evidence here."
So? As long as you can't prove that they are incorrect, they might be correct, and hypothetical things are really all that are needed to prove a lack of 100% accuracy in a statement.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
mongeesedietyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sershawn44 8 years ago
sershawn44
mongeesedietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07