The Universe is ~13.8 Billion Years Old

Firstly, I think it is important to note that science can never 'prove' anything, as one experiment can overturn any theory. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Earth being round are nothing more than really well-supported theories. It is exceedingly improbable that anyone will ever come up with a contrary theory, but none of them have been proven. This is an important misconception many have of the scientific method, and ought to be addressed. Now, the argument my opponent is making stems from research done by scientists such as M.B. Bell that suggests that other scientists do not understand the nature of the redshift of the distant quasars (1). However, there have been surveys that produce results that directly contradict Bell's model of intrinsic redshift (2). Nevertheless, we still see a linear correlation between distance and cosmological redshift in all non-gravitationally bound objects, not just quasars, and it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that earlier galaxies would be intrinsically redder. A large amount of blue light (from O and B type stars) emanating from a galaxy is seen as a sign of rapid star formation (3a). As the early universe was more matter-dense than now (3b), one would expect a higher rate of star formation and thus, bluer galaxies. In addition, very distant galaxies are so redshifted they glow entirely in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (4). As not even the dimmest stars glow entirely in infrared, the only explanation is that they are cosmologically redshifted into that part of the spectrum. And as we see this cosmological redshift in all directions and to the same extent with respect to distance (this was noted by Edwin Hubble 100 years ago, after all), there is no reason to think Hubble's Law is incorrect. I will now address my opponent's concern that the Big Bang never actually occurred. There are many reasons why cosmologists believe the Universe began as a singularity and expanded from that point (Wikipedia has a large section on Observational Evidence in its Big Bang article), but there are two simple, clear indicators. One, the galaxies are rushing away from us. The fact that this is occurring combined with the fact that the relationship is linear in nature leads cosmologists to believe that space itself is expanding. Thus, it is only logical to assume that, in the past, the Universe was smaller, so, extrapolating backwards, there must have been a point where the universe was infinitely small and expanded from there. This leads me to my second point: the recent discovery of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica. The discovery of these gravitational waves exactly match the prediction made by the inflationary model of the expansion of the Universe, and provide strong evidence for the Big Bang theory (5). The Cosmic Microwave Background is also one of the strongest supports for said model, but as my opponent is skeptical as to its reliability, I will instead defend it. The Cosmic Microwave Background is interesting because it emanates from everywhere in the sky almost perfectly uniformly (3c). There is no known object that could produce this observed effect, as such an object would have to be as large as the Universe itself. Other origins for the signal have been proposed, but all credit it to terrestrial interferences (3c). However, we know the signal is not terrestrial in nature as satellites (such as COBE) orbiting well above the Earth detect the exact same signal (3d). So, I think my opponent's proposition that the CMB could have been from 'anything else' makes little sense given the nature of the signal. As I said before, the CMB also provides good evidence for the Big Bang theory. The CMB is in a sense, an 'explosion' of light throughout the entire Universe, caused by the plasma permeating the early Universe ceasing to absorb its own radiation (3c). This would only be possible if the medium of plasma was much denser than it is currently. However, plasma (and all other forms of matter) are just energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed (as per the conservation of energy). Thus, the Universe must have been smaller in the past and must have expanded into its present state, and if we go back far enough, we reach a time when the Universe was infinitely small. However, the methods previously discussed are not the only ways scientists can determine the age of the Universe. Scientists can also use the radioactive decay of elements such as rhenium into osmium (which yields an age estimate for the Universe between 11 and 17 billion years), the thorium content of old stars (which yields an age estimate for the Universe between 11.5 and 16.5 billion years), the distribution of stars in globular clusters on Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams (which yields an age estimate for the oldest globular clusters around 11 billion years), and measuring the latent heat remaining in old white dwarves in the old globular cluster M4 (which yields an age estimate for the oldest white dwarves between 12 and 13.5 billion years) (6). I must ask my opponent exactly by how much he/she thinks the actual age of the Universe deviates from the age of the Universe determined by cosmologists. 100 million years? 1 billion? 10 billion? Knowing this will be useful for me in understanding exactly where my opponent is coming from in his/her arguments. Nevertheless, every piece of evidence from many different lines of research indicate that the Universe is around 14 billion years old. Sources: 1. http://iopscience.iop.org... 2. http://arxiv.org... 3. Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. Astronomy Today. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2014. Print. a. page 609 b. page 691 c. page 683 d. page 684 4. 'JWST Vital Statistics.' NASA, n.d. Web. 10 Aug. 2014. 5. Eller, Cynthia. 'BICEP2 Discovers First Direct Evidence of Inflation and Primordial Gravitational Waves.' Caltech Univeristy, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Aug. 2014. 6. Wright, Edward L. 'Age of the Universe.' University of California, Los Angeles, 27 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.