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

As the new guy to geology, that was AWESOME Percy. Thanks

JB

JonF writes: I asked you explicitly if your interpretation of the Bible was infallible and you sid yes. More than once. Can't find those right now but I do see that someone else noticed:

Message 469

Message 1255

JonF writes: Is your Biblical interpretation infallible? Faith writes: On this subject, yes.

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.

2 miles of missing rocks (and endless other evidences) don't lie.

JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Faith writes: You really should provide some quotes in evidence for all that.

Tell me what I said that you would like to see the evidence for and I'll provide the quotes. Are you doubting that the men I listed defended geocentricity on biblical grounds? That's an easy peasy slam dunk if that's your doubt.

But the really odd thing is that you have Martin Luther holding the creationist view he actually didn't hold, since he and kbertsche agree on death being natural to animals.

The REALLY odd thing is how you have me attributing a creationist position AT ALL to Martin Luther in my post. I didn't say a single thing about Martin Luther's position on creation -- not a single word.

JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Tangle writes: In Europe YEC *is* the domain of total weirdos.

Good point.

JB

hbd writes: I have provided you with quotes that are evidence of this (at least for Calvin and Luther) and wondered why you held beliefs (heliocentricism) that were contradictory to the Bible. You just dismissed it.

She dismisses it? You can't be serious (though I'm not sure why I would think you aren't. LOL).

To deny that that the giants of Christianity had to be dragged into the truth of heliocentricity while kicking, screaming and judging from the open bible and the pulpit is as big of a denial as that of heliocentricity itself.

It's a human trait I guess -- we must deny our past mistakes in order to stand firm in our current ones.

JB

NoNukes writes: But you did seem to attribute the view about animal death to Martin Luther. Perhaps that was wrong?

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.

Faith writes: I've always regarded an angular unconformity as comprising the entire physical unit of upper horizontal and lower folded strata. The idea that only the "missing" time is included in the definition is new to me. And I actually suspect that's not always the case.

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

Kbertsche writes: 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.

When you preach as Calvin did that upon the authority of the scriptures those asserting the earth moves are possessed by the devil, I have a hard time classifying that as 'not making a huge issue of it'.

JB

Faith writes: But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

Science is limited by time, effort, money, technology, patience, knowledge, etc.. Science is not limited by the bible. You're sitting in the station and that train is already gone.

JB

Faith writes: Googled "erosion" to get some images to explain why I think years of erosion would never produce a flat surface.

Those pictures are of the *process* of erosion, not the final result.

As I see it, this is the "scale" problem that I describe in the Curriculum thread -- humans are really bad at thinking about what the end result of erosion is because it takes SO long to get to the end result.

Every bit of the material removed in your pictures started at a higher place and ended at a lower place. Simply extend that to it's logical conclusion and that is EXACTLY how you end up with flat surfaces.

JB

Faith, you are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to understand how gravity moves particles of the earth from high to low and what the end result of that actually is - flatness. It's a very simple and organic process that never stops. During the process, there will be irregularities because soft things erode faster than hard things, but hard things erode just the same, just at a different rate.

All of the above is demonstrable and super simple and your posted pictures are evidence themselves of the process. You're fighting gravity and you will never win.

JB

Faith writes: "Flatter" is not as remarkably flat as the GU in the images I posted in 213 and 313. And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.

And of course we can show you example after example of what happens when wind and rain continue endlessly on totally flat surfaces. Turns out it does NOT continue to cut in nor unsettle it's flatness.

Faith writes: And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.

And as further evidence that your position in absolute nonsense, those of us who have regularly used the lake beds of the west actually rely on the wind and rain to 'reset' the surface every year.

Due to people getting caught on the surface in summer thunderstorms, ruts abound by the end of the year.

We rely on the wind and water of the winter to smooth out the surface for another year of high speed fun.

What resets this surface from spiky and rough to smooth and flat? Erosion.

Wind and rain do NOT continue to cut into a flat surface and unsettle it's flatness. Just the opposite is demonstrably true year after year.

JB

Faith writes: So you think the basement rocks of the G.U. were once like the Great Salt Lake? And all that schist and/or tilted strata was buried beneath the surface?

Faith, what I think is exactly what I wrote. You made several assertions that were demonstrably false. I demonstrated how false they were through evidence. That's what I think.

JB