Hey everyone!
I was having a rather heated debate with a local YEC today and the topic of dating came up. He kept reiterating the point that we (the scientist) do not know the original condition of the earth when it formed and so forth. So how do we know that radioactive decay, speed of light and all other physical laws and natural laws have always been as they are now?
As much as I tried to explain scientific methods used and so on he kept harking on about how we just don't know what conditions were like.
He then went on to talk about the Mt St Helens eruptions and the forming of strata and canyons quickly, arguments I had heard before of course, but still I let him finish. He then argued that because it has been shown that canyons can form quickly, whats to say that they haven't formed quickly in the past.
To quote a section from Ken Hams 'The New Answers Book 3' he states:
But notice something about the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism: they are anti-biblical assumptions. The bible indicated that the universe was created supernaturally by God (Genesis 1:1) and that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates.
Now my question is two fold,
1) If uniformitarianism and naturalism are anti-biblical assumptions as ways to explain things in the past, how can he use the fact that a canyon formed 30 years ago as an argument for his position?
2) Or is it that a YEC can pick and choose what to include as being fit for their arguments?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Increased text size of some of the text.
™ Version 4.2