The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

Pro's Argument: 1) Entropically, if MWH is true, then the local age estimates have a high probability of over-estimation. 2) Entropically, if YEC is true, then the local age estimates also have a high probability of over-estimation. 3) Therefore, the Multiverse Theory Supports (or coheres with) Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis The problem with Pro's argument is that he overgeneralizes both MWH and YEc and their conclusions. MWH suggests that our estimates may be off in specific ways, for specific reasons. YEC, while also suggesting that our estimates may be off, nevertheless does so in different specific ways and for different specific reasons. MWH invokes probabilities based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, assigning probabilities to the actual age of the universe (younger universes being more probable than older ones). YEC, references nothing about entropy and merely says: "God did it!" The age estimates for YEC are within a very specific range, relatively speaking, and are based upon descriptions of events as portrayed by the Bible. Nothing in MWH assigns any special value to this range or those events, so it is not appropriate to say that MWH supports YEC, in any shape, way, form, or capacity. The only hope for Pro is to try and convince the readers that "cohere" is synonymous with "support." In this context, logical coherence simply means that they are consistent: that they do not contradict one another. I will certainly concede that, regarding the vague and general statement: "The Earth is younger than current scientific estimates" both MWH and YEC are consistent and do not contradict each other. Is it, however, acceptable to then translate this as support? I certainly hope Pro's argument doesn't boil down to mere word play. I, for one, refuse the bait and switch, hence my demands which, given the natural burden of proof assigned to the instigators of debates, is hardly out of the question. I find it odd that Pro would balk at this. Contention 1 Here Pro basically denies having any sort of burden of proof and continues to ignore the fact that, when you delve into the specifics of regarding age estimates for MWH and YEC, the former most certainly does not support the latter. Contention 2 Pro continues to miss the point here. Even the false resolution of coherence is dismissed. The very fact that the existing age estimates are falsifiable and (thus, may actually be much younger) "coheres" with YEC in the sense that it, too, allows that those estimates may actually be much younger. This, then, leaves us the unanswered question: "What does MWH add to this equation such that it is appropriate to say that MWH supports YEC?" The lack of answer here is telling. Contention 3 Pro's objection here is bizarre, to say the least. The following sentence: "It's just the universe that fluctuates into existence, not any and every random object." Verges on nonsensical. If the universe fluctuates into existence, then so does each and every "random" object it contains! What else is the universe but the sum of the objects that comprise its existence! I find unfathomable that Pro would assert that the entire universe could fluctuate into existence, but not extend that to the objects inside the universe. If the objects themselves don't fluctuate into existence along with the universe, then what is Pro even talking about? The rebuttal is nonsensical and should be dismissed. If the entire universe fluctuates into existence, then so does every individual thin contained within the universe, including the Bible. The contention stands. Summary In the end, Pro's argument depends on ignoring specifics of MWH and YEC and conflating "cohere" with "support." While this was a valiant effort to draw some sort of connection between the two, the fact is, that connection falls appear under the merest scrutiny.Pro's attempts to refute my contentions and to support his argument have merely relied on accusing me of not understanding the science and making false accusations about what I have and have not claimed. In the effort of clarity, I have ignored out-of-scope objections (again, what do mantle plumes have to do with anything?) and focused on the relevant points at hand. Regarding those, all my opponent can do is rail that I haven't understood him or the science, failing to actually provide refutations for my contentions.