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

I believe I now can show that the Great Unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon was NOT formed before the strata were stacked above it.

I have to applaud you for taking this bold assertive position. I wonder if you understand the burden of proof you've set for yourself.

Your thread carves out a rather precarious position similar to the one you carved out when you claimed to be able to prove that evolution was impossible because of the diversity loss concerns.
Any and every plausible counter explanation that cannot be ruled out based on evidence is enough to prevent you from making your point. I know that seems unfair and uneven, but by promising to be able to show something, you've grabbed the short end of the debating stick. I just hope you are not frustrated.

I won't be able to participate much on either side of the argument. Suppose I just pray that your spirit and resolve are not unduly tested? At least you won't have to deal with my particular frustrating antics.

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

I find this kind of nastiness particularly uncalled for, and not very Christ-like. Bear your own cross.

There is nothing unChristlike about calling people out on their false theology and treachery against God's word, especially when they are joining in the effort with unbelievers to undermine the faith of other Christians.

Sure Faith. The Bible tells us about Jesus pointed accusations, insinuations and insults when he had to carry his own cross. In fact Jesus condemned all of those people... Oh wait, that did not happen. Yet when you do the same, you claim to be Christ-like.

You are the one who started this thread with its impossibly high burden of proof. And while you cannot accept such, the beliefs of non-YEC believers are honest and sincerely held. And they are not matters of salvation anyway. Anyone with the tiniest powers of introspection and empathy would understand at least that. Your attempts to distinguish yourself from others as being the 'honest Christian' is what I find deplorable boasting. What would indeed be dishonest is pretending that your BS makes sense when it does not.

when they are joining in the effort with unbelievers to undermine the faith of other Christians.

In my opinion, nothing undermines Christianity as much as people learning that the history and science pushed at them by their YEC church leaders utterly fails to describe nature or to be of any use other than propping up a feeling of superiority over the better informed. Sorry, but I cannot help you spread disinformation. No one should.

Sorry, but I disagree. Yes, Christian apologetics attempts to develop rational, logical arguments to defend the claims of Christianity.

Coyote and I have discussed this before. Apologetics gets a bad rap here. The term is intended to apply to philosophical and theological arguments for Christianity based on logical reasoning from universal or widely accepted principles. As taught in universities, Apologetics was never meant to include a defense of Creation Science, which is a relatively modern endeavor.

Apologetics is a valued and reasonable Christian practice. It has absolutely nothing to do with lying for Jesus or self deception. In fact, Apologetics should be a part of every Sunday offering from the pulpit.

Sorry, to resolve a conflict between science and the Bible you don't choose in favor of science and make the Bible conform to it.

I'll bet I can catch you doing exactly that.

Besides that, expressing an honestly held opinion is never dishonest.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 nature of death can be considered a fundamentalist view that is separate from Creationism. If Martin Luther believed in a literal 'Creation Week' and a 'Global Flood' then he is a Creationist. Separate from that is exactly to what kind/level of literal, Bible inerrancy Luther may have subscribed.

After all, even Arminianism does not preclude one from being a Creationist. Jehovah's Witnesses are Creationists.

which makes him a different kind of creationist than the kind ThinAir was describing

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.

I didn't say a single thing about Martin Luther's position on creation -- not a single word.

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

I was unable to make this link work.

More information is available in an excellent paper by Matthew Dowd.

and the stars in Gen 1:16, Calvin wrote:

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".

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)

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?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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".

A minor modification to Calvin, but to a modern fundamentalists, the ramifications might be more important.

In any event, I view the term sunset a bit differently. There is no question that the term is a holdover from a time when it was believed that the earth did not rotate on its axis. So a martian would be completely correct in reading a literal meaning to the term. The error would be in making the inference that modern man never did figure things out.

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.

Well, no. That's rather the point. In some cases we can ascertain the facts independently of the Bible. Surely disagreement with facts can be a clue. We don't need to do a language study to figure out that the sky forming a dome over the earth is metaphoric language.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

which we all naturally use still and will never stop using because that's how we experience it: the sun RISES AND SETS.

kbertsche did not say anything much about Biblical language with regard to sunrise and sunset. He was instead using an analogy of something a martian might look at.

And regardless of our perception, because our experience is misleading, the sun actually does not rise or set.

The astronomical definition for sunrise is the point at which the sun is completely below the horizon. That definition has nothing at all to do with a geocentric versus heliocentric point of view. Arguably talking about the sun rising might impute a particular view point.

On the other hand, other some verses clearly do imply a view point. When the Bible says that the passage of a day was halted by commanding the sun to stop, there is an open question about whether the expression describes a misunderstanding on the part of the Biblical author or whether we can take it as poetic license.

Did Calvin use wording that is fairly understood to mean "baby talk?" The idea that "biblical language was accommodated to human understanding" is a pretty standard idea, not particularly Calvinistic, though any implication that it was mainly geared to pre-scientific humanity is awfully self-centered of modern man.

In the case of the sun, "human understanding" clearly means misinformed ancient human understanding. It is pretty clear to all but a very few that geocentricism is wrong. Calvin suggests that even astronomers of his time had access to better information that can be found in the Bible.

Calvin's view is in my opinion at least somewhat reasonable although I am not so convinced as kbertshe that Calvin does not make some of Luther's mistakes. But clearly Calvin's view is also at odds (somewhat) with Luther's and some other Protestants views on the same subject.

As for the accusation that there is something peculiarly Catholic about this error, one might well point out that Copernicus was Catholic. We know and understand the threat the Catholic Church felt regarding the issue. What was Martin Luther's excuse?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.