Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

You did not actually say anything about different kinds of creationists. What you actually wrote labeled your view on animal death as creationist. But it is not creationist. It's a particular fundamentalist doctrine about what the nature of life post creation. It is no more creationist than is Original Sin. But if that's what you meant, then you should not take my post as a correction.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps not. But you did seem to attribute the view about animal death to Martin Luther. Perhaps that was wrong?

You have been shown the basis for the idea of two miles of missing rock and have even acknowledged that you were already familiar with the evidence but what the hey, here it is yet again.From Message 4:

quote:

---

an illustration that helps explain what is meant by "Great Unconformity".

​

It is not the rocks that are still there but rather the over one billion years of rock that are not there.

---

Notice that the Tapeats Sandstone immediately overlies the Super Group except where it is immediately above the Vishnu Schist.At that point all of the Super Group rocks (over two miles of rocks) are missing.Read the numbers on the far right.The Sixty Mile Formation is 200 feet thick.The Chuar Group is 5200 feet thick.The NanKoweap Formation is 370 feet thick.The Unkar group is 6800 feet thick.200 + 5200 + 370 + 6800 = 12700 feet.One mile = 5280 feet.12700 / 5280 = 2.38 miles.In the area where the Tapeats Sandstone immediately abuts the Vishnu Schist at least 2.38 miles of rock is missing.Of course it could be considerably more missing rock but we can say with near certainty that at least two miles of rock was eroded away before the Tapeats Sandstone was laid down.Edited by jar, : appali spallin in sub-title

Certainly not my intention -- I have no idea as to any of Luther's views on creation and death.The first paragraph outlines Luther's (and other) views on geocentricity and establishes that they fought helocentricity on biblical grounds.The third paragraph compares the YEC mistake to the geocentric mistake -- namely claiming the bible is above science.Poor wording perhaps.JB

quote:

---

In their day and age, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Philipp Malanchthon, Bellermine and ALL the giants of Christianity believed and insisted that the earth sat unmoved and the heavens rotated around us. They declared those who disagreed to be apostate and even devil possessed. They claimed that if science and the bible contradicted, it wasn't the bible that was going to be altered because all science had to be measured against the bible. The verses proclaiming geocentricity were "divine evidence" and who has the authority to argue against the divine?

​

We all know how the above worked out - in time, the tools of science laid low the "divine" verses and today, only the strangest of the strange argue as Martin Luther did. Forget the past and one is apt to repeat it.

​

Arguing that all plant and animal life was created together, that there was no death until ~6000 years ago, and that the major geological features are the product of a world-wide Noahic flood is simply repeating the same error that the giants of Christendom made in the face of the overwhelming evidence all those years ago. The evidence simply doesn't support it and a few hundred years from now YEC will be considered the domain of the complete and total weirdos.

---

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

My understanding (and I just learned this) is that the very geological definition of an unconformity IS the point where there is missing rock.JB

Very nice apology, Faith. I offer this quote from John Calvin for your consideration.

quote:

---

The greater light I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.

---

I assume you are looking for evidence regarding heliocentric views. Surely the holding of creationist views is not in doubt.John Calvin

quote:

---

The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil posses them

---

Martin Luther

quote:

---

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

---

In the broadest sense, an unconformity is the depositional contact between two rock bodies of different ages, and hence, represents a gap in the geological record. An unconformity would be approximately horizontal (if not deformed), with the younger rocks above it; and does not include intrusive contacts or fault contacts.There are several different types of unconformities, as shown at:Unconformity - WikipediaAs you can see, the upper contact of the Vishnu with the GC Supergroup, or with the Tapeats, could also be called a nonconformity.With this in mind, I sometimes refer to the land surface on which we live an unconformity as a way of showing YECs that unconformities do actually exist.

or 10,000 years ago ... ?or 12,000 years ago ... ?Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Calculations based on the Septuagint have traditionally dated creation to around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah produces a date around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic a date around 4000 BC.[23] Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).[24][25][26] The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to 1 September, 5509 BC, Mara de greda and her followers to 5199 BC, while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC.[27][28] Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.[29]

​

After the Masoretic text was published, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support.[30] Proposed calculations of the date of creation, using the Masoretic from the 10th century — 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (27 April, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Srensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC).[23][26][31][32][32][33]

---

Also see Estimates of the age of the earth
and Beliefs in the Earth's ageNot much consilience in the age calculations?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : moreEdited by RAZD, : .

Interesting that they believed all that.

So far as I know, Luther held pretty much to a medieval view of the cosmos. He believed that the firmament was solid, with sun, moon, and stars firmly attached to it, because Gen 1 said that God placed these objects IN the firmament of the heavens. He apparently held to geocentrism, referring to Copernicus (or Galileo?) as an "upstart young astrologer" ("astrologer" meant "astronomer" in his day). Luther was almost certainly a form of YEC, but I suspect that he followed Augustine and did NOT believe that the Days of Gen 1 were literal.Calvin is a bit harder to figure out. He seems to have been more open to science than Luther. He frequently noted in his commentaries that biblical language was "accommodated" to human understanding; God could only communicate with mankind in what was essentially an over-simplified "baby-talk", which should not be read more literally than intended. Calvin apparently held the generally-accepted Ptolemaic astronomy rather than the newer, controversial Copernican system, but he didn't make a huge issue of this. More information is available in an excellent paper by Matthew Dowd.I don't know much about the views of Malanchthon, Belarmine, or others.FYI, below are a few quotes from Calvin's commentaries:
Re the "waters above the firmament" in Gen 1:6, Calvin said:

quote:

---

For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.

---

Re the "greater light", the "lesser light" and the stars in Gen 1:16, Calvin wrote:

quote:

---

I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.

---

Re Ps 19:4-6, Calvin wrote:

quote:

---

He hath set in them a tabernacle [or pavilion] for the sun. As David, out of the whole fabric of the world, has especially chosen the heavens, in which he might exhibit to our view an image of God, because there it is more distinctly to be seen, even as a man is better seen when set on an elevated stage; so now he shows us the sun as placed in the highest rank, because in his wonderful brightness the majesty of God displays itself more magnificently than in all the rest. The other planets, it is true, have also their motions, and as it were the appointed places within which they run their race, and the firmament, by its own revolution, draws with it all the fixed stars, but it would have been lost time for David to have attempted to teach the secrets of astronomy to the rude and unlearned; and therefore he reckoned it sufficient to speak in a homely style, that he might reprove the whole world of ingratitude, if, in beholding the sun, they are not taught the fear and the knowledge of God. This, then, is the reason why he says that a tent or pavilion has been erected for the sun, and also why he says, that he goes forth from one end of the heaven, and quickly passes to the other and opposite end. He does not here discourse scientifically (as he might have done, had he spoken among philosophers) concerning the entire revolution which the sun performs, but, accommodating himself to the rudest and dullest, he confines himself to the ordinary appearances presented to the eye, and, for this reason, he does not speak of the other half of the sun’s course, which does not appear in our hemisphere.

---

Re the earth being "founded upon the seas" in Ps. 24:2, Calvin said:

quote:

---

David does not here dispute philosophically concerning the situation of the earth, when he says, that it has been founded upon the seas. He uses popular language, and adapts himself to the capacity of the unlearned. Yet this manner of speaking, which is taken from what may be judged of by the eye, is not without reason. The element of earth, it is true, in so far as it occupies the lowest place in the order of the sphere, is beneath the waters; but the habitable part of the earth is above the water, and how can we account for it, that this separation of the water from the earth remains stable, but because God has put the waters underneath, as it were for a foundation? Now, as from the creation of the world, God extended his fatherly care to all mankind, the prerogative of honor, by which the Jews excelled all other nations, proceeded only from the free and sovereign choice by which God distinguished them.

---

Edited by kbertsche, : Fixed link (why didn't exactly the same thing work inside of quotes?)

I was unable to make this link work.

I think it's fixed now. (I thought the URL address was supposed to be inside quotes in the URL tag. This always worked for me before, but it didn't work with this URL for some reason.)

Calvin here explicitly takes the position that Moses description of astronomy is largely a liberal taking of poetic license. How is Calvin's position not to be taken as interpreting the Bible to fit with science?

I would not describe it as "a liberal taking of poetic license". Calvin was pretty clear that he believed "Moses wrote in a popular style". Calvin believed that the biblical writers had to "accommodate" their message to the the unsophistication of their audience. This is clear in his other quotes that I presented, as well as many others, e.g. Gen. 14:1:

quote:

---

In saying that the battle was fought in the vale of Siddim, or in the open plain, which, when Moses wrote, had become the Salt Sea, it is not to be doubted that the Dead Sea, or the lake Asphaltites, is meant. For he knew whom he was appointed to instruct, and therefore he always accommodated his words to the rude capacity of the people; and this is his common custom in reference to the names of places, as I have previously intimated.

---