Young-earth creationists, of which I am one, reason deductively, starting by assuming the Bible is true (and mostly literal) and working down to what we see and have discovered about the world.
How is that reasonable? As the poster above mentions, how is it reasonable to start with a (dogmatic) conclusion and ignore all evidence which contradicts it? That seems very unreasonable to me.
We will doubt any scientific principle that does not coincide with biblical belief because such principles have come about inductively, based on observations of the present world first and then reaching conclusions.
So you disagree with the entire scientific method? You are saying that it is better to dogmatically hold on to a belief than to be swayed by evidence? Really?
If the constancy of the viscosity of water were contradictory to the teaching of the Bible, then creationists would question it. The only reason creationists don't question it is because they have no reason to do so.
So conversely, creationists have no reason to doubt other physical constants such as radioactive decay other the problems it causes for creationism. Is that correct?