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

Con asked in reference to YEC as a political, cultural, religious movement, "I fail to see how this furthers the claim that YEC is a problem to Judeo-Christian beliefs or science. So a political group wants ID in schools, does that show any problems in ID? Please show why this presents problems. " 1) I defined YEC as a political, cultural, and religious movement and supported the statement to show the movement is more than just an interpretation of the KJV of the Bible. I was simply defining the movement not furthering the claim. I did not posit this contention to show its harm to Judeo-Christian beliefs or science. I detailed the definition to thwart potential arguments based on the unimportance of YEC. My opponent is certainly free to write, "YEC is a political, cultural, and religious movement, but so what? " I was supporting my extended definition from the wiki article, nothing more. A review of debates on this site indicates definition support is necessary. If my opponent has no problem with YEC being defined as a political, cultural, and religious movement, in addition to the rough wiki definition, then I will not address it further. Con stated in reference to placing the God of Abraham in falsified terms, "I do not see a real problem here" 2) I certainly do! Placing the Judeo-Christian beliefs in the center of pseudoscience and false history is a problem as both, pseudoscience and false histories, require deceit for support. My opponent is welcome to offer arguments showing YEC is not pseudoscience and the 6,000 year old earth is not false history and not deceitful, but I can find no logical argument showing how any belief system based on deceitful premises can maintain itself; once the deceit is shown, the belief system, as a whole, becomes suspect. Please note, I made very clear in Rd 2 the fact that YEC will not divorce a belief in God from a belief in a young earth. If the young earth falls, then belief in God falls with it according to YEC principles. In relation to a 6,000 year old earth, my opponent writes, "Has this theory ever been proven false? No, and it never will be in the foreseeable future. " 3) I stated in the previous paragraph that my opponent was welcome to offer arguments showing YEC is not pseudoscience, but this statement does not allow such an argument to be presented if my opponent wishes to be consistent. I completely agree with my opponent when he says the 6,000 year old earth has never been proven false. The claim is not falsifiable as it is based on acts by a supernatural deity originating and existing outside of space/time. My opponent confirms this with his further contention of "never will be in the foreseeable future. " I will further this one and say it never will be at all as an omnipotent being can change any and all evidence at will. Describing unfalsifiable claims as theories while claiming their basis lies in the fact they cannot be proven wrong, is the heart and soul of pseudoscience. The natural evidence provided by YEC, which is falsifiable, has been falsified. No cosmological, geological, biological, or chemical evidence, when viewed in full, supports a 6,000 year old earth. The belief, when based on natural evidence, is pseudoscience. Once YEC is removed to a belief without physical evidence, science is no longer helpful. The theologians must step in as the belief hinges on a very specific and selective reading of the KJV of the Bible. I will address this in item 5 "Were any of us there to watch? I think not. " 4) This is common argument posited by YEC and specifically Ken Ham's movement. See Answers in Genesis; they present this contention in most of their articles so I see no need to cite each one. I fully and unequivocally agree no human was present at the formation of the universe or the formation of earth or any planet for that matter. If humans were present then science has gotten a lot wrong. My response is simple – so what? Eyewitness testimony is not necessary to prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Examine the existence of atoms for a perfect example, as we have never SEEN an atom. Sam Bowen does an excellent job of explaining this point when asked whether we have seen an atom and his explanation applies firmly to this contention: . http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... (I chose this source as it is written in layman's terms. ) Even though we did not see the formation of the earth, there is so much evidence showing the earth is much older than YEC claims; science simply cannot support the belief. I honestly can't see how any reasonable person can support such a contention. My opponent asks for clarification and states in reference to the Hebrew people and scripture, "Although my opponent is not extremely clear on what part(s) of the Bible he is referring too, I will assume that he is referencing Genesis, the first book of the Bible? Please clarify this. " 5) I am referring to the Bible as a whole, not Genesis alone. The book of Job, and Isaiah fall victim to YEC as well as Genesis. Job in respect to the placement of dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time, . http://www.answersingenesis.org... and Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 40. . http://www.icr.org... YEC takes this passage and applies it to show the prophets knew the earth was a sphere well before science realized the spherical earth. Why? I will let Father Bruce Vawter explain why such readings are necessary for YEC: "The Bible is no longer a source-book for religion, it is primarily a source of knowledge, sacred and profane…. It is instead the one and only source of every human affirmation in every conceivable field of such affirmation, in whatever area of affirmation – social, religious, the totally secular areas of profane history, chronology, current scientific hypotheses of processes- in short, a divine encyclopedia of all relevant knowledge dropped down from the heavens as the only righteous guide to life. " (Is God a Creationist? P75,76; speech originally given at the Conference on Creationism in American Culture and Theology in 1982) Furthermore, in direct reference to Isaiah 40, Professor of Comparative Mythology and the History of Religions at Gustavus Adolphus College, Conrad Hyers, provides a phenomenal context to Isaiah 40, which if viewed as a scientific principle must ignore the history surrounding it "If one really wishes to appreciate more fully the religious meaning of creation in Genesis 1, one should read not creationist or anticreationist diatribes but Isaiah 40. For the theology of Genesis 1 is essentially the same as the theology of Deutero-Isaiah. They are also bothe from the same time period, and therefore part of the same interpretive context. It was a time that had been marked, first, by the conquest of most of Palestine – save Jerusalem- by the Assyrians under Sennacherib…. The last vestige of Jewish autonomy and Promised Land had been overrun, The Holy City had been invaded …. Those taken into Babylonian captivity, as well as those left behind, now had even greater temptations placed before them to abandon faith in their God…. [B]efore the might and majesty of the great empires of the day, a prophet dared to stand forth and declare what Genesis 1 in its own way also declares [Isa. 40;12,13] Here too is a poetic affirmation which no literalism can reduce to its own scales and balances, and no symbolism or imagery exhaust. [Isa. 40, 21-23] To YEC this is heresy, as Isaiah was simply telling people the world was a sphere. I await my opponent's argument concerning the problems to science.