Zubbbra25 writes:
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?
He can't. Not only does the example of 30 years ago not relate at all to the Grand Canyon, but it can't relate to *anything* past or future if uniformitarianism isn't assumed. Without such an assumption inference is impossible and he commits intellectual suicide.
For example, he wouldn't be able to assume that the words he uses mean the same thing they did the last time he used them. He couldn't even assume that the next time he eats will sate his hunger, or the next time he breaths it will perform the same function of respiration. He couldn't be sure that people 2000 years ago needed to breath or eat. Its a ridiculous position to take without sufficient reason to conclude things operated differently in the past, and that evidence simply isn't present.
Zubbbra25 writes:
2) Or is it that a YEC can pick and choose what to include as being fit for their arguments?
The YEC position absolutely requires the rejection of mainstream evidence in preference to favored conclusions. I don't see how this is in any manner debatable.
™ Version 4.2
