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

You are simply unwilling and unqualified to do anything resembling science, and you have shown this time and again with your posts.

Faith has repeatedly said that she is not a scientist. She is clearly uncomfortable with scientific reasoning and in trying to interpret scientific evidence.

But as with most YECs, I think the root problem is more fundamental: YECs have been convinced that the Bible is the only reliable source of truth; nature is unreliable as a source of truth. This in spite of the fact that Paul said that nature is a reliable source of truth; he said that God's character is plain and clearly seen through nature alone (Rom 1:18-20).

A person operating from the belief that the Bible is the only reliable source of truth will not be convinced by scientific evidence, no matter how strong it is.

And again Paul referred to Nature as evidence of GOD AND HIS LAW, not of "truth" in general and not truth ABOUT Nature. To say otherwise is to twist the truth. But not to notice the blatant contradiction between the Bible and science's interpretations of Nature is self-delusion.

As you well know, the development of modern science was based largely on the Christian (especially Protestant Reformed) convictions that nature follows divinely-prescribed laws and that God has revealed truth through two "books", the book of Scripture and the book of nature (thus nature does reveal truth).

And thanks for leaving the honest Christians to take all the insults that you get to escape by siding with the world.

I avoid the insults that you receive on the issues of the timing and mechanism of God's creation. I prefer to take a stand (and receive insults) on the primary issues of the Christian faith, especially the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you would simply quit trying to bolster your YEC views with science you would receive much less opposition. Why don't you just adopt the views of Gosse that nature looks old, we can't learn anything of its true origin through study of nature itself, so there is no point in trying to match up its own evidence of origin with Scripture?

This is sophistry. Science did develop from Christian principles, the principle that Nature follows the laws of a law-giving God. It certainly never meant that Science was on an equal footing with the Bible, it just meant that if Nature is lawful we have some hope of understanding it. There is certainly truth in Nature, but NOT NECESSARILY IN SCIENCE.

I completely agree with you that science is not on an equal footing with the Bible. These are two entirely different categories which cannot be directly compared. Science is a human interpretation of God's revelation of truth through nature, while the Bible is divine revelation of truth which must be interpreted by humans.

Nature and Scripture are both divine revelations of truth and are thus on an "equal footing" in terms of revealing truth. But they reveal very different things. To paraphrase Galileo, the Bible reveals how to go to heaven, while nature reveals how the heavens go.

Once you have allowed the veracity of God's word to be brought into question, you have eroded the very foundation you need to make any claims at all for the primary issues of the Christian faith. If the Bible can't be believed in Genesis why should it be believed anywhere else? And as a matter of sad fact, the gospel NEEDS Genesis to make sense, why we need a Savior, how God promised to send us a Savior.

I am not questioning the veracity of God's word, of course. Not even in Genesis. Rather, I am questioning--and rejecting--the YEC interpretation of God's word.

Nature doesn't reveal anything to us about itself or even about God in our fallen condition, it's utterly opaque to us normally, and science is the only method that can interpret it.

Really? Then why does Paul say that nature reveals truths about God so plainly and so clearly that fallen man is without excuse for rejecting God (Rom 1:18-20)? What you say above disagrees with Paul!

If death preceded the Fall then death is natural and not a corruption of life due to sin. Why do we need a Savior from something that's natural and inevitable? He came to save us from sin which is a violation of God's law and from death which is a violation of nature brought about by sin.

I believe that death of animals is indeed natural. They don't sin so they don't need a Savior. Death only of man is a consequence of sin (Rom 5:12ff).

I believe that death of animals is indeed natural. They don't sin so they don't need a Savior. Death only of man is a consequence of sin (Rom 5:12ff). I wish you would start a thread on that in one of the F&B forums since neither your position or Faith's position or even Paul's position seem to make any sense Biblically.

I don't see much point in this. You and I have already expressed our views in Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? in the "Bible Study" forum. I'm not quite sure whether you think I'm misunderstanding Paul or you think Paul was wrong, but it is clear that you and I disagree on Rom 5:12ff.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This resembles the traditional Christian apologetics. According to wiki, Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.

Sorry, but I disagree. Yes, Christian apologetics attempts to develop rational, logical arguments to defend the claims of Christianity. But what Faith has been doing in this thread is very different. Rather than arguing for the claims of Christianity, she has mainly been arguing against the claims of mainstream science.

This echoes a common tactic of YECs. Rather than presenting alternative scientific theories, they just try to poke holes in mainstream science. Their view is that if mainstream science fails, then YEC wins by default.

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?

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.

---

Okay, let's not take it as poetic license. What is still being said here is that familiarity rather than accuracy was Moses goal. It is suggested that Moses actually knew better (something for which there is zero evidence ) but wrote down to the audience in order to reach them. (In my opinion, that's close enough to poetic license)

Calvin apparently believed that the biblical writers (Moses, David, etc.) "knew better" but "accommodated" their language to the audience. It probably would have been a more defensible position to claim that God is the one who accommodated His message, both to the audience and to the biblical writers. But this is a relatively minor modification to Calvin's principle of "accommodation".

The result is still a lack of literal accuracy that we can only appreciate by knowing the correct answer via a scientific investigation of nature. How can we tell when Moses is resorting to dumbed down writing? Is the same thing occurring in his list of generations? In the described sequence of creation events? In his description of the number of animals on the ark?

Good point and good questions. Yes, it is difficult to tell which details are meant to be taken literally and which are accommodations to the audience. I believe our only hope of getting this right is to study the historical and cultural context of the original audience and the grammar of the original text.

Note that we have exactly the same problem with modern speech. The newspaper lists the times of the "sunrise" and "sunset". Taken literally, a Martian could believe that we hold to geocentrism and we think that the sun is actually moving around us. But being immersed within the culture we automatically know that this is phenomenological language and we do not mean it literally.

Actually you are wrong. The difference between stopping the sun from rotating around the earth, and stopping the earth from rotating on its axis produce different results that would easily be distinguished on earth; at least the could be distingushed by people with an understanding of physics. The Biblical description of the event is only equivalent to reality if those differences are ignored.

FYI, if you are speaking of "Joshua's long day", realize that Christians (even YECs) interpret this account in a variety of ways. In fact, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb disagreed on how it should be interpreted.

In short, it is pretty clear that the underlying picture of the universe expressed by the writer's was completely wrong. If everyone actually knew better at the time, then there would be no harm in expressing what actually happened.

I think you and Faith are both correct here. The ancient writers were using phenomenological language, not scientific language. They also would have accepted the geocentrism of their day without question. The purpose of Scripture is to teach about God, not about science, so God didn't try to use Scripture to correct their wrong view of the cosmos. He also didn't try to use Scripture to teach them medicine, particle physics, or numerous other details about His creation.