Logical Fallacy of Proof by Uniformitarianism

Proof by uniformitarianism is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Logical Fallacy of Proof by Uniformitarianism occurs when uniformitarianism, the unfounded assumption that there was not catastrophic, worldwide, Genesis flood and that all processes have continued from the beginning as they are now, is used as a base assumption or axiom and treated as if it were a known fact. This is a type of hysteron proteron and is one of the outworkings of Agrippa's Trilemma. All claims against Divine revelation are always based on some form of infinite regress, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumption. One of these three is always used to justify Uniformitarianism.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Uniformitarianism

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "if there was this enormous Flood that you speak of, wouldn’t there have been churning and bubbling and roiling? How would these things have settled out? Your claim that they settled out in an extraordinarily short amount of time . . ."

There is a suggestion that the bubbling and roiling would not have allowed deposition of the sediments that now make up the rock layers. This is false and therefore it represents a weak premise. The reality is that it has been demonstrated that deposition of sediments can be very rapid. The answer to this question is that the sediments we see are exactly in accord with what we would expect if there were a horrific, catastrophic, worldwide flood. There is a lot of science that supports this. Bill Nye implies that they would not have settled out in a way that reflects what we can observe, however, there is no evidence supplied to support Bill Nye’s implication.

Bill Nye is presupposing Uniformitarianism (no-Floodism), the very thing he is trying to prove. In other words, he is again using the fallacy of circular reasoning, that is, begging the question. If there were no Flood, then the time would be extraordinarily short, however, Bill Nye has not shown evidence other than this circular reasoning that the Flood didn’t happen. And we already know that the Flood did happen. We know it by revelation. God says so through Scripture and through what we can see around us.