Apart from all that, in order for believers to demonstrate how they know God, one would have to follow them around with a camera and a mic...without them knowing...to witness the behavior of the individual.
How would behavior indicate that they know anything about any deity?
I would say that you would be witnessing and documenting God through the behavior of a human.
You could say that the Sun orbits the Earth. You could say that the Moon is made of marshmallows. Saying something does not make it true.
This seems to be a thread that runs throughout theism. Theists believe that writing something down or saying something makes it true by the very act of writing it or saying it. You take that same position, treating scriptures as dogmatically true simply because somebody wrote them down.
For the YEC, I ask if there should be a different definition as to what science is apart from critical thinking and the scientific method.
The user "Faith" has rather transparent reasons for wanting to change the rules of science, and those reasons are that Faith can't win a debate if we use the rules of science that have been around for the last 200 years.
We are told that it is "unfair" if YEC's have to follow the rules of science or the scientific method. Of course, the truth is just the opposite.
To help illustrate this point, let's look at my out-of-luck Seattle Mariners (an American baseball team for those outside of the US). They are below 0.500, and kind of stink this year. If I were to use the YEC definition of fair, then the Seattle Mariners should be allowed to change the rules when they are at bat. They should get 10 outs and 8 strikes per at bat so that they can win. Afterall, if they can't win then it isn't fair, according to YEC's. Right?
What YEC's can't seem to understand is that changing the rules is completely UNFAIR. We define cheating as those who try to change or circumvent the rules so they can win. It is YEC's who want the mantle of science in order to make their beliefs look believable. If they want to earn that mantle, then they have to follow the rules.
Our argument is that belief needs to be respected rather than simply dismissed without evidence.
I respect the right of someone to believe as they wish, but that doesn't equate to a respect for the belief itself. Without evidence, beliefs should be simply dismissed. How else are we going to find the truth of the world if we are busy holding a nearly infinite number of contradictory beliefs in our head?
Your argument is that science by definition rejects and dismisses a myriad of things on a regular basis.
Yes. Why is that a problem?
If you still want to believe in something that science does not accept, then that is certainly your right.