The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

IntroductionThe subjects brought up by my opponent are, admittedly, very interesting. And while they are certainly worthwhile reading material in their own right, we should take care not to get too involved in tangents and stick to the resolution at hand. My opponent has adequately described the science in question here and has attempted to link it to YEC.Before continuing I will make one important note about YEC. YEC is not a unified, codified, standardized theory, in any field. That said, it is almost a fallacy to refer to it as such. Therefore, we must generalize and simplify what YEC commonly means, in that it is a depiction of the creation and development of the Earth in accordance with the Bible. It is not merely a statement that the Earth is comparatively young. This will be important.After reading through the material presented by my opponent, the key take-away appears to be this:"Meaning the MWH lends itself to the same type of bizarre illusionism YEC does; our biological, astronomical, geological age estimates would be wrong, giving the appearance of an old earth, while having a young age."Contention 1 - What does Illusionism get us?The allusion here is to that of Boltzmann Brains (BB). The works presented by my opponent refer to them, though perhaps in a more technical sense. Here is description more suitable for lay people:"The Boltzmann Brain paradox isan argument against the idea that the universe around us, with its incredibly low-entropy early conditions and consequential arrow of time, is simply a statistical fluctuation within some eternal system that spends most of its time in thermal equilibrium. You can get a universe like ours that way, but you’re overwhelmingly more likely to get just a single galaxy, or a single planet, or even just a single brain — so the statistical-fluctuation idea seems to be ruled out by experiment." [1]This results in my opponents conclusion in the sense that, if we, as observers, are merely random fluctuations, then the entire basis on which we conclude about the universe around is is removed. We cannot treat the external universe as it appears to be, as everything we know about it is based upon our memories, which could, themselves, merely be a result of random fluctuations.The problem with this is, if what we believe to be the universe is an illusion, then we have no basis on which to say what the "real" universe is like. My opponent only submits that the Earth could be younger than we observe it to be, but this is but one of many possibilities. It could be the Earth is older. It could also be that there isn't an Earth at all. With Boltzmann's brains in effect, it isn't merely cosmological constants and fundamental values that are called into question it is everything anyone thinks they know.Even if this scenario causes us to throw out established measurements for the Universe and Earth's ages, there is nothing here that allows us to replace it with anything that supports specific estimates required for YEC. The only thing we can put in its place is a big question mark.Contention 2 - The Long WalkSince the scenario proposed by my opponent doesn't actually provide measurements in support of YEC, what does it do? All it does is propose that the existing measurements could be wrong. But, we don't need MWH or BB to demonstrate this. Science (mostly) incorporates the fundamental aspect of falsification.Consider: "[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" [2] (emphasis mine). Falsifiability, being the ability to demonstrate that a scientific theory is false. "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific." [3]Current measurements, such as the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are components in, and conclusions of, existing cosmological, astrological, geological, and other scientific theories. Being scientific theories, they must be refutable in the sense that there must be some event which demonstrates them to be false. With this in mind, we must realize that as a fundamental aspect of science, we already admit that these measurements may be false.So, pulling up these esoteric theories gains us nothing in this regard. We already knew, and it was already accepted, that it is possible for these measurements to be wrong. We judge them to be most likely correct, based upon observation and testing, but we implicitly allow for them to be disproved at any time. Since the only thing my opponent suggests is that they could be wrong, if a given untested hypothesis is correct, then this adds nothing to discussion. Invoking MWH in this context doesn't make these values any less likely to be true, or any more likely to be false, then we currently allow for.Contention 3 - Illusionism RevisitedLet's revisit the topic of Illusionism as well as the specifics of YEC referenced in the introduction. YEC isn't merely the suggestion that the Earth is younger than science suggests. Rather, it is young age of the Earth, within certain ranges, based upon the material presented by the Bible. That is, while there are many variations of YEC, in terms of exactly how old the Earth is, all are ostensibly rooted in using the Bible as a basis for that measurement. For example, using the geneologies presented by the Bible to trace the history of the Earth backwards from some known point.However, the problem with this is MWH invokes BB which suggests that we, as observes, are spontaneously arisen from random fluctuations, our memories intact. Thus, everything we think we know, including the content of the Bible, is false. To take this theory and apply its consequences to one area (measurements of the age of the Universe and Earth through scientific means) but not another (measurements of the age of the Universe and Earth based on ancient Middle Eastern myths) is special pleading.With MWH in effect, nothing is sacred, literally. Everything we think we know must be abandoned, including the Bible.SummaryMy opponent has, admittedly, drawn and interesting connection with a scientific hypothesis and some vague resemblance to Biblical suggestions. However, at the end of the day:1. MWH and BB only suggest that our measurements are not rooted in some external, objective, reality and could be wrong. They don't demonstrate that they are wrong in the specific ways necessary to support YEC.2. Science includes falsifiability as a fundamental aspect, and therefore already concedes that they could be wrong, ergo invoking MWH does nothing specific in this sense to support YEC.3. If MWH and BB are true, then we must also cast out conclusions drawn by the Bible, including YEC.[1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...[2] http://www.stephenjaygould.org...[3] Ibid.