The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mashed-potatoes
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

how old is the universe?

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...
mashed-potatoes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 745 times Debate No: 79652
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

harrytruman

Con

In this debate we Wil be discussing how old the universe is, I am going to debate an atheist.
Atheists believe that the universe is 14 billion years old, scientists came to this hypothesis by determining the nuclear deterioration of stars, pretty solid, there's just one problem, there's no control.
Now right about now you're probably saying
"What kind of whack job "scientist" publishes his findings with out a control scenario?"
The answer is, an atheist who has an axe to grind.
Hope some one accepts.
mashed-potatoes

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

Thank you, my arguments are above. Also, cmb could come from anything, and most likely all comes from an infinite many small sources such as stars.
mashed-potatoes

Pro

Age may only be a number, but when it comes to the age of the universe, it's a pretty important one. According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. How did scientists determine how many candles to put on the universe's birthday cake? They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. Age limits The universe cannot be younger than the objects contained inside of it. By determining the ages of the oldest stars, scientists are able to put a limit on the age. The life cycle of a star is based on its mass. More massive stars burn faster than their lower-mass siblings. A star 10 times as massive as the sun will burn through its fuel supply in 20 million years, while a star with half the sun's mass will last more than 20 billion years. The mass also affects the brightness, or luminosity, of a star; more massive stars are brighter. [Related: The Brightest Stars: Luminosity & Magnitude] Dense collections of stars known as globular clusters have similar characteristics. The oldest known globular clusters have stars with ages between 11 and 18 billion years old. The wide range comes from problems in pinpointing the distances to the clusters, which affects estimates of brightness and thus mass. If the cluster is farther away than scientists have measured, the stars would be brighter, thus more massive, thus younger than calculated. The uncertainty still creates a limit to the age of the universe; it must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older, but not younger.

Conclusion

The universe is 13.8 billion years old.

http://www.space.com...

Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

Expansion is not constant, they cannot.
And no there is no control, I mentioned this earlier.
mashed-potatoes

Pro

I guess that is his rebuttal. Now I will go to my main arguments, saying why he is wrong and I am right.

1. Con did not say how old he thought the earth was, and only rebutted my side and did not support his side.

History of the Universe Poster

This is the history of the universe. As you can see it was a long time the universe was made or born.

Look at many books. They all say that the universe is 12 to 16 billion yearsold. The interent is for facts.

Please Vote for Pro!!!

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Con incorrectly applies attributes to atheists that is wrong. Hayd has basically said all I would have said.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) This doesn't explain the decision. Merely stating one thing that the voter perceives as faulty in Con's argument is insufficient for analyzing the debate, especially as it doesn't regard what is faulty and why it matters to the debate as a whole. (2) Voters must produce their own independent reasoning for why they decided to vote for a given side. By stating that a separate RFD "basically said" all he "would have said", this voter doesn't show that he has read the debate or comprehended it, and has not provided independent feedback to the debaters.
************************************************************************
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
My debate is that it is around 300,000 to 3,000,000 years.
Posted by mashed-potatoes 1 year ago
mashed-potatoes
how long do you think?
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Radiation came from all the super no as actually, radiation could come from anywhere not just a big bang that needs an ignition (God).
Posted by Surrealism 1 year ago
Surrealism
Actually the most accurate measurements of the age of the universe come from WMAP's measurement of the CMB.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tough 1 year ago
Tough
harrytrumanmashed-potatoesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G was not severely broken on either side to a level where anything they wrote was too offensive or incoherent. The arguments goes to Pro because while Con proposed a possible way in which the resolution could be false, Pro had the burden of proof and he met it in Round 2 by providing clearly sourced evidence and experimentation results from a credible peer reviewed site such as space.com and was only rebutted with ' Con Expansion is not constant, they cannot. And no there is no control, I mentioned this earlier.' which was backed up by no evidence at all. Since Pro provided evidence and had the burden of proof it was up to Con to disprove Pro, it wasn't up to Pro to address Con's suggestion in Round 1 which was backed up by absolutely nothing at all (not even an argument beyond the possibility of an theist having an axe to grind carrying out illicit experiments and botching the results).
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
harrytrumanmashed-potatoesTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons starts off wrong by saying an atheist is one who believes the Earth is 14 billion years old, this is wrong, an atheist is one who does not believe in god. Con makes so arguments except a defensive one that there is no control scenario. This only applies to experiments, yet all Pro's evidence was observation not research. Pro then makes a great argument that the universe cannot be older than the objects contained within it, and the objects date 14 billion years so the universe is at least that old. He mentions the expansion of the universe, should have expounded on that point as well but Pro wins arguments.