Instigator / Pro
19
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2584

The Universe is Older than 10,000 Years

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
4

After 4 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

WesleyBColeman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1520
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description

-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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

First of all, I note an important point, the presupposition nature of this debate.

IMO, Proponent's (Pro) strongest argument was the Universe's age as judged by lights speed (R1). Contender (Con) countered in several ways. Indirectly, he undermining the Universe's dating method's reliability by questioning the dating method for a part of it, the Earth (4.5 billion years). Another was the time it would take DNA/RNA replication. A third is Dr. Jason Lisle's, the "horizontal problem." The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention principle addresses P4. Con identified that the speed of light cannot be determined in one direction but relies on a two-way measurement. Finally, the Thomas Aquinas argument was the coup d'etat.

The take from these arguments; something is off. Thus, human standards and measures are in question, begging from the present to the past.

I felt Cons R1's rebuttal regarding the speed of light a little lacking. It did not develop the argument for the rate of the Universe's measured expansion seen in starlight distances now as opposed to then (Premise 4). (i.e., A universe/balloon analogy in which two dots [representing stars or points of distance] on a balloon expand and increase the length between the two as air is added, questioning whether the expansion rate is accurately calculated in the present looking back to the past. More air would fill the balloon faster, increasing the distance quicker). As Con pointed out, God put the starlight into place in one day (R2). Thus, in the BB model, the acceleration would have embodied that time frame - one day, not billions of years in determining the age. Thus starlight either appeared mature, or the expanding Universe's pace was faster in the beginning, are other explanations that counter P1. P1 and P4 (Pro - R1) are the problem areas of the Pros argument.

Cons R1 "rebuttal" included the significant presuppositions nature of the evidence. He developed this argument in every future round. Con reminded Pro that both sides examine the issue with worldview baggage and bias - the creation framework opposing the "Naturalistic" framework. The creation view holds the belief in a mature universe. Thus, Pro countered whether God is a deceiver, focusing his argument on the appearance of things rather than maturity. I thought Con responded adequately. But this brought further questions to mind. Is the naturalistic view sufficient in determining the age? In R3, Con enhanced the presuppositional side of the argument. His presentation here went unanswered by Pro and, IMO, is at the heart of this debate. That argument from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae is:
1. The argument from motion (Whatever is moved is moved by something else/Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions...).
2. The argument from efficient cause (...nothing can be the efficient cause of itself/If there is no first cause then there will be no others...).
3. The argument from necessary being (...objects in the universe come into being and pass away/If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence...Therefore, a Necessary Being exists.).

A++

These three queries, IMO, make the presuppositional nature of Pros entire argument questionable.

Of Pros R1 five premises, Con correctly focused on Premise 1 as not being adequately demonstrated in future rounds.

P1. The Universe can't be younger than the time it takes for light to reaches us.

Please note, Pro never explains why the speed of light is as it is - its nature. What makes that speed possible? The constant is assumed possible in/by a naturalistic worldview, the worldview Pro offers for the age of the Universe - Naturalism.

Pro argued that He is not looking at this from a naturalistic position was thoroughly refuted. Pro is doing what he claims he is not, as Con demonstrated. For instance (as a side excursion), Pro did not give an adequate reason as to why his view was anything other than a naturalistic framework, as pointed out by Con ("...he is a naturalist because he does not believe in supernatural processes."). Pro does not believe...or does not use. Pro solely used a natural argument. End of discussion.

Pro believes the speed (the constant) is what it is because of chance happenstance - no intent or purpose. Poof! That is quite a presuppositions assumption and leap that demands support that never materialized.

I thought Pros' other charges were adequately fended off by Con.

Thus, I believe Con had the better argument and reasoning.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

A few things about PRO. First off, I appreciate that he honed in on a single contention, whereas CON spent most of each round oscillating between several and it was a bit difficult to keep track at times. Bringing only one item to the table is a pretty dicey tactic, however, and even though it allows you to concentrate on a consistent line of attack, if it isn't well kept or fortified enough then it's going to falter. PRO's fatal blunder and ultimately what cost him the victory here is the fact that he put all his eggs in the light-speed basket so that his entire case either stands or falls with it. In the end, it fell, I just didn't find his rebuttals very convincing, plus the whole idea was moot to begin with as CON rightly pointed out.

For CON, as I said he had a myriad of different contentions he brought with him, and to be honest he made his BOP a lot more strenuous than it needed to be; the first round seemed a bit like shotgun argumentation to me, which admittedly got better as the debate moved forward but was still present. After reading everything I feel like CON spent the majority of the time housekeeping and doing maintenance for the initial points he raised. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think he could have condensed it more to lessen his own load and to save the reader some fatigue, in turn giving him more space to focus on fleshing his rebuttal of the decisive lightspeed topic, since that's what PRO hinged his entire case on by his own admission. That being said, for a quasi-jumbled case, it was remarkably organized and coherent. I felt lost at times but I was still able to follow along and comprehend what was being said. Just from skimming through the debate, I could already tell who won more points for sources. CON was obviously well-versed in this issue, coming in with two robust, highly-researched points that he clearly spent a lot of time setting up and preparing.

Since both sides are saddled with a BOP for this one, it's going to have to go to CON. His overall case was much more meticulous, grounded, and expansive than his opponent's, as I said if you're going to stick with only one argument it needs to stand against some ruthless scrutiny, which in this case PRO's didn't. CON's explanation and allusion to Adam and Eve being created as adults is enough to prove that God can (and has) created things in their more mature form without engaging in deception, thus destroying PRO's viewpoint (or at least his particular articulation of it.) I'm giving conduct to CON, as he actually made an attempt to reply to everything that was leveled against his position. It's hard to say the same for PRO, who barely interacted with CON's case and didn't provide a cogent defense of it. It almost seemed more halfhearted.

All in all, very interesting debate! Great job to both sides.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is a case where I really want to make arguments worth 2 points instead of 3, to give con due credit for the quality case he offered.

That said, pro drilled down on a single point, and framed the defenses to require either nonsense or God to be a deceiver who actively wants the observable evidence to indicate a much older universe (not merely stars created in their mature light emitting state, but that said light is sped up to reach us 2,642 times faster than it otherwise would). So either the universe is at least 2,642 times older than 10,000 years, or the creator of it wants us to think it is due to the setup, or the creator wants us to ignore observable evidence of his creation... Therefore, the intuitive conclusion is the one that doesn't logically and morally contradict itself; as much as creation by a deceiver is within the realm of possibility (merely less likely).

I am slightly torn on if con committed a Gish Gallop or not, as he never did anything to imply he wins the debate if each flood myth isn't proven... Yet the evidence as presented does look a lot like a Gish Gallop... So identifying it as that seems a fair way to try to move past it, but I don't believe con was commiting a conduct violation associated with true Gish Gallops.

Pro did very well on the general reply to the creationism/evolution arguments, with the age of the earth being unimportant to the age of the outside universe (as much as con did well on presenting the YEC arguments).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Incredibly enough, pros singular argument is enough to uphold his entire argument. I buy all of cons arguments except his refutation of speed of light, and that the universe age is equal to age of the earth. I buy that pro’s support of evolution is slim to none. I buy that there is a plausibility that God exists where pro failed to disprove. I buy that there is quite a possibility of a flood that pro failed to poke enough holes in. But all of these are useless if you can’t point out a legitimate reason besides time dilation gibberish. It is not too only argued that we see the light from 13 billion years ago, but also that the measurement itself proved that our separation of 13 billion years mean that the light travel itself must have been at least this long. In addition, con provides no reasons why God would fool humans into believing a wrong age of the universe. For these reasons, I toss the vote to pro. Perhaps a debate about Earth’s age would be more interesting...