The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

Filtering through my opponent's borderline condescending argument, we can extract the following relevant pieces of information: "I've attempted to link MWH to YEC only in the sense that it's age estimate would contradict what we currently observe, thus coherence between the two theories is found." When I first read Pro's argument, I got the impression that he was deviating from the stated resolution and was merely suggesting that MWH supports YEC simply because MWH suggests that our estimates for the age of the universe are wrong, which is what YEC would require to be true. Sorry, but I don't buy this. Pro references a Bayesian approach, which implies that MWH, if accepted as evidence, makes YEC more likely to be true. That is, if we observe MWH to be true, then whatever value we place on the probability that YEC is true increases as a result. Pro has not demonstrated this to be the case. The logic is simple, almost too simple. If MWH is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates.If YEC is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates. To take these statements and then conclude: If MWH is true, then YEC is more likely to be true. Is a non-sequitor. "[I]f our world is just a chance fluctuation from a state of overall equilibrium, then we ought to be observing a much smaller region of order, because a small fluctuation from equilibrium is vastly more probable than the huge, sustained fluctuation necessary to create the universe we see." My opponent fails to apply this concept in full force. There is a correlation here between the size of the region of order and the probability in which it can arise. The smaller the region, the more likely it is. To support YEC, this region would have to be whatever size is necessary to be consistent with YEC age estimates. The problem is, according to this concept, it is possible (and more probable) for the size to be smaller than even this, thus contradicting YEC. "Thus my basic resolution stands, the MWH, if true, would give us an illusion of age, thus lending support to young earth creationism. The support isn't a full support obviously since it doesn't prove God, or the universe took exactly 6 days to form, etc. Rather MWH supports YEC only in it's claim to an illusion of age." The problem here is YEC makes no claims to any illusion. YEC doesn't say that the Earth is young but appears old. YEC says the Earth is young and appears to be young. Now, to my Contentions. Contention 1This is addressed in my statements above and has not been refuted by my opponent. It is not enough to merely call into question our estimates for the age of the Earth. My opponent needs to demonstrate that MWH shows that the age estimates are more likely to be those required YEc, while recognizing that YEC has lower limits. Limits for YEC range from 6 thousand to 10 thousand years. Is this range special to MWH? Would MWH not be more support for Last Thursdayism than for YEC? Contention 2Even if falsifiability doesn't permeate all of science (debatable) it nevertheless exists. Wherever it exists is an implicit concession that what we know could be wrong. Since my opponent is referencing a scientific hypotheosis that would call into question our age estimates for the Earth, he concedes that those estimates are falsifiable. Whether or not falsifiability applies to mantle plumes is a gross red herring. Since the age estimates for Earth are falsifiable, then that alone is a statement that they could be wrong. Thus, MWH is not unique or special in suggesting that they could be wrong in someway, just in what manner they could be wrong, which is outside the scope of debate. As such, one need not invoke MWH to "support" YEC in this sense, one only need invoke the falsifiability of those age estimates. Since MWH adds nothing to the equation here, it is not appropriate to single MWH out as "supporting" YEC. Contention 3Allow me to restate this in another way: If we exist in some small region of space that exists as a random fluctuation with only the appearance of old age then then we must acknowledge that it isn't just the appearance of age which we must call into question. It is everything, including the Bible. Thus, rather than being some statement of fact about the universe, the Bible, arising out of a random fluctuation, is also an illusion, including its depiction of the universe and any YEC theories derived from it.