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

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. "