The Universe is Older than 10,000 Years
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
-BOP is Shared.
-Please no Solipsism.
-Please no Kritiks.
Definitions for the context of this debate:
-Universe - All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
--Year (Earth) - The time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
These terms are not to be redefined at any point during this debate.
I look forward to an interesting debate.
- We find whole rock layer sequences deposited rapidly in quick succession. The walls of the Grand Canyon, from the tapeats at the bottom to the kyba limestone at the top, supposed to represent three hundred million years of slow and gradual sedimentary deposition. When the plateau was pushed up, the rock layers were bent and folded - but they were folded without fracturing. They had to be soft, if they were bent without fracturing. That means they could have only just been deposited. Therefore, the three hundred million years could never have happened. All those rock layers had to have been deposited in quick succession during the flood year.
- Sea life buried high in mountains on the continents. Marine creatures that live in the ocean are found on mountains like the Makhonjwa Mountains that were supposedly formed 3.6 billion years ago. Plate tectonics is not the answer. These formations all over the world are burials for sea creatures that are not much older than and nearly identical to the modern sea creatures we see today. There are shellfish with limestone minerals contained in them that can only come from salt water i.e. the open ocean. 
- Long transport distances of sediments. The Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon. The same grains are believed to have been washed and transported a great distance far north from at least Wyoming. The Navajo sandstone in Zion National Park, the huge white cliffs, the same grains are believed to have been eroded and washed all the way from the Appalachians right across North America. These sediments travel from large reserves and stretch to a lower geographical position.
- Rapidly buried plants and animals. We find fossils of fragile creatures that would require a near instant burial such as plants, bees, bats, fish -- that haven’t finished having their meal of another fish also buried and fossilized, ichthyosaurs -- birthing to babies and they’re fossilized, and delicately preserved jellyfish. These things are found in mass, yet literally necessitate an instant burial.
- Rapidly deposited sediment layers across the continents. There are universal layers of sediment such as the redwood limestone layer. In that layer are many fossils. It is most obvious at the Grand Canyon. Yet that same limestone layer is found at the same place over in Pennsylvania, England, the Himalayas, etc. The chalk beds are another example. The Cliffs of David, Europe, the Middle East, Caslick Stan, Texas, the mid-Western United States, Western Australia, etc. The coal beds of Pennsylvania and West Virginia are also found in England and Europe right across the Ural Mountains. So wherever minerals are concentrated, they form identical layers in the expected place. The order of the layers for instance, doesn’t change if a layer is missing or added.
- Rapid or no erosion between sediment layers. For instance, in the Coconino sandstone in the Hermit shale there is a knife-edge, flat, featureless boundary between those two rock layers for miles through the grand canyon, yet the evolutionary geologists would have you believe they are separated by ten million years missing at that boundary. What would have happened during ten million years of weathering and erosion? You’d get a topography and not a flat featureless boundary. At the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the tapeats sandstone sits on the pre-flood rocks and we have evidence of huge erosion there. With boulders being picked up from the underlying rock layers indicating rapid erosion. There are many examples of this kind of rapid forming and erosion happening in both Washington (Best seen at Mt. Everest) and New Mexico.
"I would like to first thank my opponent Sum1hugme for the invitation to have this discussion on the topic of the age of the Earth and the Universe. Thanks to everyone reading and evaluating the facts brought to the table. I urge you all to look at the data anew and see if either the “Old-Earth '' or “Young-Earth '' theory is best befitted by it. As debate of an “Old-Earth'' and a “Young-Earth'' implies, this is about one area of the Darwinian and Christian worldview"
"...my opponent will be using a different framework (evolutionary) that everything was created over a period of approximately 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13.8 billion years total for the universe."
"The reason I’d argue the Universe can be “younger than the time it takes for light to reach us” is because it is in the creation framework that God created all things in their mature form... I will admit that pro has a good argument here, but the idea of creating mature life is very Biblically founded and fits snugly into the “Young-Earth” narrative as well."
"There are well over 300 flood myths. If the creation timeline is true, we can infer the ancestors of all these different people groups were indirectly told the accounts from Noah and his family all the way down to modern time. The stories were embellished by different cultures in different ways, some to an unrealistic mythic extent, but the essence is the same throughout."
"It is very important that we not gloss over that point. Both pro and con are using what is known as a presuppositional framework. That is to say, either the naturalist: which includes the “Big Bang”/ Multiverse, abiogenesis, Macro-Evolution via common ancestry, and likely no supernatural element; or the creationist: which includes creation/Creator, adaptation of “kinds”, and Biblical historicity such as the resurrection and the Flood."
"My opponent does not have to 'prove' the Big Bang or any other components so long as they can show they have better explanatory power. In that case, neither do I have to 'prove' God or anything in the Bible is a fact. So long as I can show it has better explanatory power (meaning the evidence makes the most sense in my framework), I have won the debate."
"To say that the Universe is at least 26,420,000 years old you would either demand evolution or coincide God."
"based on the flood evidence provided, that the Biblical creation framework is true. In this theoretical scenario, say that you have coincided there is a God. In that case, there would be no need for light to have traveled that estimated amount of time."
"God could create it all in an instant (and there is good textual evidence that God did)."
"Essentially, either evolution is true or there is a God and the Universe is young."
"I would contest that saying “He actually created the Universe to look old” is simply speculative and ad hoc since, in the creation framework, God did not create the universe to “look old” he created it to be mature."
"There are many reasons that the Biblical flood myth is more compelling. For instance, it is a world flood. I have provided detailed arguments for why a world flood follows logically based on physical and historical evidence. Also, in the Biblical story of the Flood, all the specific details of the ark and external circumstances are detailed and consistent when taking it as a historical narrative. The Biblical flood likely also came before other well known flood-myths."
"By examining the vessel structures of these ancient near-Eastern accounts, you find impractical versions of the arc such as a basket (Simmond’s Ark) or a box (Gilgamesh’s Ark), but in the account of Noah the boat is made to similar specifications of a modern cargo ship. A model of Noah’s Ark was tested on the open ocean and found seaworthy in this study."
"Again, the Noah story is written such as a historical account with no embellishments..."
“I am not supporting a Naturalist framework, and certainly not the way my opponent defines it (that being every science he doesn't agree with).”
“My framework was laid out in my opening statement, that the universe cannot be younger than the time it takes light to reach us.”
“My opponent has not contested that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.”
“My opponent has created a straw man, a false dichotomy, and cemented my point about using evolution as a term for all the science he disagrees with. Only now, instead of evolutions, he uses the word naturalist for describing those same sciences. I am not advocating for the framework of naturalism, but rather that light travels at a constant speed.”
“My opponent can win this debate if'n they can refute my opening argument, which he has made no attempt to do besides, (paraphrasing) "God could have made it look old, but it really is young." This doesn't refute the core argument, known as the "starlight problem," because it would be impossible to tell if god was deceiving us. So unless my opponent can prove that the light from this distant star is younger than 10,000 years with anything other than blind conjecture, he cannot win the debate.”
- Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)
- Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality. (An actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn.)
- Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take away the potential. (Hence, which came first for Aristotle, the chicken or the egg?) (E.g., the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert.) (Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such, the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.)
- Thus, a First Mover exists.
- There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
- It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
- To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
- If there is no first cause then there will be no others.
- Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
- Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
- Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
- If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.
- But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.
- Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e. a Being of which it may exist) exists.
"Evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not cosmology. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of starlight. This is also another false dichotomy with several flaws: 1. Evolution does not equal atheism, 2. There could be no god and the starlight be as old as it appears, 3. There could be any configuration of god(s) and evolution could still happen anyway."
“Evolution does not equal atheism”~ Pro
“There could be no god and the starlight be as old as it appears”~ Pro
“There could be any configuration of god(s) and evolution still happen anyways”~ Pro
"This would mean that the starlight appears old but is really young, and therefore god is being intentionally deceptive. My opponent is left to either concede that God is deceptive (which undermines his credibility when he says he made it young), or that the universe is actually old as it appears. That is unless he can demonstrate that light somehow doesn't travel at a constant speed in a vacuum."
"Of course, evolution is true has nothing to do with the age of the Universe or if there's a god."
“The Big Bang, the alternative to biblical creation, also has a similar type of light travel time problem of its own. It’s called the horizon problem. It has to do with the cosmic microwave background that we see streaming from the distant regions of the universe. We find that it’s very uniform, and that shouldn’t be because, in the big bang model, we should have different temperatures in different places. Why is it so uniform?Obviously, light energy had to travel from the hotter regions to the colder regions to equilibrate those temperatures, but there hasn’t been enough time, even in the 13.8 billion years there’s not enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. That results in a light travel time problem for the big bang theory. It’s not a problem for an infinite God to get the light to travel from distant galaxies to earth.”~ Dr. Jason Lisle
"What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light-years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument."
"Funnily enough, I was taught in Christian School that Noah's ark was box-shaped and that the box shape (Gilgamesh's you said was impractical) was divinely inspired because in a world flooded, there's no need to do anything but float until it's over."
"The entire story is an embellishment."
"He is avid that he does not advocate for a presuppositional framework, yet he has little in the way to back it up. "
" To be a naturalist, the naturalist processes should be more convincing than the explanations of the creationist.""The monotheistic God of the old testament (Judeo, Christian, Muslim) is the only God with the capability to create the world in this fashion."
"If Pro cannot defend the seeming flaws in the naturalist worldview, then the old Earth stance simply falls."
"I clearly have defined it as the naturalist processes that answer the questions of how everything is the way it is. These are evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc"
"A theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."
" ...I agree with the science of the speed of light in a vacuum."
" If the universe cannot be younger than the speed of light, that assumes that no creator interfered with light and that naturalist processes must have occurred for light to have been created."
"There is scriptural evidence that God made the plants animals and the environment to be livable for Adam and Eve in 6 days...Is God deceiving by creating adults instead of youth that wouldn’t be able to fend for themselves?"
- Deceptive: Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading .
Me- "What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light-years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument."Opp.- "Nothing."That’s why saying that it ‘looks’ a certain way is ad hoc. You just proved my point, funnily enough.
"After the flood, there were great lakes... A study in Texas indicates that canyons are formed rapidly and not overtime and all examples are shown to have cliff-like edges."
"This is an assumption made by old-Earth geologists. However, these salt deposits can have occurred during the flood. There is evidence for this in the canyons near Mt. St. Helens."
"Both of these misdate the Biblical flood at around 2500 BC when in reality correct Biblical reading dates the flood at 3105 BC. That combined with using faulty dating methods such as radiometric dating and carbon dating which have been proven to be unreliable since the 80s."
" Arguably the opposite is true. According to this secular article, a flood is actually the only way to preserve a raindrop fossil."
"Dinosaur is noted as being alive after the flood, so they had plenty of time after the flood. That is a null point, read Genesis."
EVOLUTION =/= ATHEISM
“These explanations of natural phenomena and processes simply don't require supernatural intervention as a component of their explanatory power; they do not need to assume naturalism.”
“To juxtapose this straw man, he posits biblical creationism, which also rules out deism by necessity.”
“The fact that these natural processes and explanations are consistent with deism defeats my opponent's falsely dichotomous framework alone. As none of his arguments for god's existence indicate anything past a deistic god.”
"Of course, literally, any religion that believes in an all-powerful god would fit this latter description. [i.e. the only God with the capability to create the world in this fashion.]"
“...but that doesn't matter because descriptions of biodiversity, cosmic origins, and the origins of life don't have to be assumed to measure the distance to Cepheid Variable Stars.”
“It defeats him because I am not claiming that natural laws are adequate to account for all phenomena; but instead, those natural laws are enough to account for this specific phenomena.”
“The age of the light is a logical derivative of the distance to the light-emitting body. So my opponent is necessarily arguing that God, by some unnamed mechanism, created the Universe to look like the distance, and therefore the age of things is different than they are. Since a creator to make the light look old (or mature if you'd prefer) is superfluous to the explanatory power of the speed of light, the burden falls on my opponent's shoulders to demonstrate that the laws of physics were broken at the time of creation to make the star look far away. I could concede god in a deistic sense and this explanation would still be adequate to explain the age of the light that is reaching us."
“The reason that the one-way speed of light cannot be objectively measured is that you need a way to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance. But in order to synchronize two clocks separated by some distance, you have to already know the one-way speed of light. So it cannot be done without circular reasoning.” ~ Dr. Jason Lisle
"There is scriptural evidence that God made the plants, animals, and the environment to be livable for Adam and Eve in 6 days...Is God deceiving by creating adults instead of youth that wouldn’t be able to fend for themselves?"To answer the question first, yes, if one was trying to determine the age of the people, but they were created to look older than they were, that would be deceptive.
"If the people appear old but are young, that is deceptive in the same way that making the star appear far away and old, but it really is young and/or close is deceptive."
“The idea of scriptural evidence is only applicable in the realm of the scripture itself. In the same sense that there is literary evidence that the ring was given to Frodo. This doesn't indicate that Mount Doom is a literal place, or that events of The Lord of the Rings are factually accurate.”
Me- "What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light-years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument."Opp.- "Nothing." That’s why saying that it ‘looks’ a certain way is ad hoc. You just proved my point, funnily enough.""Therefore, this argument of god creating the star and its light to "look mature" and creating it to "look distant\old", even though it's not according to you, is exactly the same. Therefore, this language shift is an attempt to sidestep the central issue."
"After the flood, there were great lakes... A study in Texas indicates that canyons are formed rapidly and not overtime and all examples are shown to have cliff-like edges."To quote the article my opponent cited, " 'The Grand Canyon was formed as the Colorado River slowly wore down the bedrock. That probably took millions of years though,' said geologist and study co-author Michael Lamb of Caltech in Pasadena, Calif."
"This is an assumption made by old-Earth geologists. However, these salt deposits can have occurred during the flood. There is evidence for this in the canyons near Mt. St. Helens..."My opponent's hand-waving dismissal of this point as an "assumption" ignores the contradiction of there being intervals of evaporation when Noah's flood posits only a single drying event. This occurrence at Mt. St. Helens doesn't address this basic contradiction of the Noahic flood myth to reality. My opponent's unbiased scientific source, "evolutionisamyth.com," doesn't even have the word "salt" in it. Its section on Mount St. Helens does not address the issue I presented.
"Both of these misdate the Biblical flood at around 2500 BC when in reality correct Biblical reading dates the flood at 3105 BC. That combined with using faulty dating methods such as radiometric dating and carbon dating which have been proven to be unreliable since the 80s."These points were that there were deserts in the world during the time the flood supposedly happened, and that mud cracks are extremely unlikely to fossilize in a major global flood especially. Also, my opponent just dismisses the dating methods with a single posted source, so I will affirm them similarly. Carbon dating is accurate as far as it can actually date , and radiometric dating is reliable as well . They are reliable because their methodologies have been tried and proven repeatedly.
“At least to the uninitiated, carbon dating is generally assumed to be a sure-fire way to predict the age of any organism that once lived on our planet. Without understanding the mechanics of it, we put our blind faith in the words of scientists, who assure us that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining the ages of almost everything around us. However, a little more knowledge about the exact ins and outs of carbon dating reveals that perhaps it is not quite as fool-proof a process as we may have been led to believe.” 
" Arguably the opposite is true. According to this secular article, a flood is actually the only way to preserve a raindrop fossil."My opponent's source states it would require a gentle shower and a gentle flood, not a catastrophic one, in order to fossilize raindrops. Noah's flood entails relentless torrent for forty days and the most catastrophic flood event in history.
"Dinosaurs are noted as being alive after the flood, so they had plenty of time after the flood. That is a null point, read Genesis."Dinosaurs aren't noted as being alive after the flood unless you're basing that off a loose interpretation of the "leviathan" or "behemoth" in Job. "Read Genesis" does nothing to substantiate this baseless claim, and it should be disregarded for the reason of being baseless.