YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science.

I will deal with my opponent's contentions and conclude my argument. I see no need to add more as my opponent has not refuted my previous points. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to future debates with him. My opponent states in reference to problems to religion, "The ‘problems' that my opponent addresses here are scientific, rather than religious. These will be addressed later under the scientific problems section." Point 5 in the previous round, which my opponent ignored, deals with the religion problems. Please note, I showed how YEC abandons the history of the Hebrew people so as to fit scientific principles into the Bible. I addressed this point twice in this debate and my opponent chose not to refute it. This was one of the main contentions I presented. I cannot rebut any response he puts forth in his last round. Voters should be aware of this as my opponent has had ample opportunity to deal with this matter. My opponent states, "The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything. Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is older than 6,000 years old." My opponent copied this material directly from a YEC website, but did not research the problems associated with turning the KJV of the Bible into a chronology for all of time itself. I addressed this issue in my last round (pt 5, Father Bruce Vawter quote) The chronology put forward by Bishop Usher does not address the time and location of the Hebrew people and their propensity to deify their ancestors much the same as the polytheists did in their chronologies. I know how the YECs get the 6,000 years; the problem is using the Bible as a pinpoint accurate history of all time. John Lightfoot refined the seventeenth century Bishop's work and concluded the Creation took place on October 18, 4004 B.C. Funny enough, historian E.T. Brewster commented, "Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit himself." (The Tower of Babel, Pennock, p10.) My opponent never addressed this point and he had opportunity to do so. My opponent further states in reference to the 6,000 year timeline the chronology of Jesus' ancestors, "The genealogy of Jesus is recorded in two passages of the Gospels: Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–28. Each traces the ancestry of Jesus back to King David, to show his fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Christ." My opponent would have done well to read the next sentence in his provided source, "The two genealogies are remarkably different, however, disagreeing completely on the lineage from Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, back to David. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham and traces a descent through David's son King Solomon, omitting several generations along the way. Luke proceeds [sic, error in original] upward, through David's son Nathan, continuing all the way to the first man, Adam." The differences in this chronology, as the wiki states, have been a source of controversy. I do recommend Augustine's writing on this subject [listed as source 7 on the wiki; De consensu evangelistarum (On the Harmony of the Gospels) beautiful work], but I must note – YEC ignores him as well. My opponent lists a chronology, but nothing more. This was not necessary as I am aware of how time is extrapolated from this chronology, but my opponent never addresses the errors associated with it. Those errors were mentioned in the source he provided. My opponent states, "My opponent claims that creationists ignore scientific evidence. He emphasizes the second law of thermodynamics. This basically states that the entropy will increase in a closed system. I believe my opponent either misunderstands entropy, or YEC. The Bible says that chaos is ensuing, and the Earth is deteriorating." I ask voters to consider this comment when judging conduct. Unless supported, I do not claim my opponent misunderstands concepts presented. Disagreeing with a concept is not misunderstanding it. I consider this type of argument to be in bad form. I have not, under any circumstances, misunderstood entropy or the YEC use of it in this debate. My opponent, at least, agreed that the 2nd law applies to closed systems; I showed in my previous arguments that YEC does not agree with this principle. YEC applies the 2nd law to show evolution is not possible and to show how the fall of man is in direct support of this law. YEC must have the 2nd law apply to OPEN systems and this is simply false. Upon return from my vacation, I will happily have a debate concerning the 2nd law and the fact entropy IS NOT THE SAME as disorder. http://www.entropysite.com... Even Answers in Genesis refutes the claim presented on my opponent's source http://www.answersingenesis.org... , and it is listed as a refutation on the same website my opponent pasted to his argument http://www.godandscience.org... . Scientists correctly reminded the YEC position that without entropy Adam and Eve could not have digested food. Yet my opponent sources a website that simply ignores this evidence; a phenomenon I explained very clearly throughout this debate. The correlation of the fall of man, entropy, and decay as related to the 2nd law has been falsified. They are not the same. My opponent quotes Jeremiah 25:32 from a site that lists many translations of the Bible. I urge voters to review this verse and ask, "What does this have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?" Evil going forth from every nation has nothing to do with a scienctifc law stating that "heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot objects; it is impossible for an engine to convert heat to work with 100% efficiency and; the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." (The Nature of Science, James Trefil, p399) I don't see it, but maybe I misunderstand the whole concept. My opponent copied verbatim a list of scientific principles from the Bible. Again, this was not necessary as I am fully aware of how YEC extrapolates science from the KJV of the Bible. I listed two examples myself! Why add anymore without addressing the two I presented? How does my opponent deal with my reference to Job and Isaiah? He lists the very points I made in the previous rounds, and nothing more. He took Isaiah 40 and applied it to a spherical earth, and I need to add at this point that a circle is not the same as a sphere, and ignored, as YEC does, the context of the verse within the historical and cultural situation of the Hebrews. The Con position's only arguments were direct pasted from YEC sites after an unnecessary clarification round. He never addressed my main points, and he had ample opportunity to do so. Upon review, I have shown YEC poses problems to both science and Judeo-Christian beliefs for the aforementioned reasons given in prior rounds. The Con position merely restated the YEC position, which was really not in controversy in this debate. I know what the YEC position holds. Pro met his burden and did so with ample source material from scholarly work. Con was not able to refute the points provided. Con can only add to his stance in the final round and can do so without my rebuttal. I hope voters do not think my stance harsh, but one round compiled from cutting and pasting a website should not hold against the material I provided. Con is a capable debater and should have fared better than his position here. The Pro position holds.