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?
All the evidence points to uniformity of radioactive decay, speed of light and all other physical laws and natural laws. There is no good evidence to suggest this is incorrect. In the face of so much contrary evidence, YECs
have to believe anything which gives them some hope that their religious beliefs in these areas are correct. It doesn't have to be logical, supported by evidence, or even consistent with other beliefs as long as it lets them delude themselves that their beliefs are supported by science.
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.
It is a waste of time even trying with one whose mind is so closed to the evidence of the real world.
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.
Canyons can form very quickly in soils, such as those laid down and rearranged by St. Helens. Canyons do not form nearly so quickly in hard rock.
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.
Which one stands up to a test against real world evidence?
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?
First, the bible has nothing to do with science. Many of the religious beliefs credited to the bible are in fact anti-science and anti-rational.
And he is using the 30-year old canyon as evidence because he has nothing else. And that, as noted above, is entirely wrong. Newly deposited soils will behave much differently than old hard geological rocks. They might both form canyons but to suggest that because one does so quickly in soils that the other must have done so quickly in rock (and as such being part of their evidence for a global flood) is silly.
2) Or is it that a YEC can pick and choose what to include as being fit for their arguments?
Bingo! We have a winner!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.