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

This is why I have won this debate. My opponent's rebuttals where all hypothetical and some of them originated from a biased source. . http://en.wikipedia.org... We don't even know if dark matter exists, it's just hypothetical, so screw your whole redshift argument. "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. " "Christian Science" . http://www.creationscience.com...... Pfeh. These guys literally think the world was only a few thousand years old. Yeah your source is pretty *cough* unreliable. Anyway, the speed of light is a physical constant. . http://en.wikipedia.org... If it wasn't then the whole universe would screw up. Ever heard of Albert Einstein's equation E=mc2? Well, the speed of light is c and if that changes then mass/energy conversion would change. If light speed were to have been slowing than all of the stars in the universe would have been putting off less and less energy. Even if everything was 100% perfect and mass energy equivalence didn't screw up, wouldn't slower moving light mean that the star is older? If light is traveling slowly, then. .. It would take longer for it to reach us wouldn't it? So the light we are seeing would come from things that are MUCH older. See, a contradiction in your case, and I'm not even a rocket scientist. Also, what about: . http://news.bbc.co.uk... See, the object is more than 13 billion light years away making it 13 billion years old, and if light was moving slower that would mean it was even older. Anyway, all of your rebuttals are hypothetical and biased. I'm the only guy who provided real evidence here.