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

I'd say it's neither of those, but what I said already: describing the event from the physical perspective of earth, the way WE would see if it happened today as well. It's not a scientific or analytic statement, it's purely descriptive.I don't think any of the Biblical descriptions can be called "geocentrism" even if that's what people made of it in the early scientific age. It's just a perfectly natural description from the point of view of earthlings.It is important to say that the Ptolemaic view was the official position of the Roman church because it shouldn't have been. Ptolemy and Aristotle, who also inspired way too much of their theology, are pagan thinkers they allowed to eclipse a strictly Biblical world view. Calvin and Luther also should have known better, but as I said, they too had been steeped in Catholicism. As for Copernicus, he was as much a rebel from Romanism as the Reformers. There were quite a few of those down the centuries who nevertheless didn't break with the RCC as the Reformers finally did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Huh?

Which neither the ancients had, nor 99% of humanity after them. Hardly anyone even through our own time had enough scientific knowledge to apply to the situation.If the Bible is merely describing what happened, "the sun stopped moving" is quite sufficient without knowing whether the sun itself stopped or the earth's rotation stopped. There wouldn't be different results because God is doing this and there's no way to know how He did it. He's not going to stop the earth and let us all fly off into space, so what He did remains a mystery. Disagree. There's no reason for the Bible to give any more than a description of the sun's apparently stopping its movement from the point of view of human beings on earth. HOW is really a completely different issue. If they had a scientific view of it at all. which there is no way to know, then it would probably have been geocentrism, but there is NO reason to think that level of thought applies to the Biblical descriptions at all. But nobody thinks "everybody actually knew better at the time." GOD of course knew and He is the inspirer of the writings, but He has no reason to give us more than a simple description. So what? I'm not claiming there is. The point is only that if the Bible's descriptions were recognized as merely descriptions and not scientific information, heliocentrism would have been a lot easier to defend. You are imputing WAY too much to the word "pagan," all it means is philosophies from outside the Bible. Ptolemy and Aristotle simply WERE literally pagans by that standard and their thinking was not biblical. The problem is that once the RCC put a pagan philosopher's thinking OVER the Bible, which they did with both Ptolemy and Aristotle, then someone like Copernicus or Galileo couldn't argue as easily for heliocentrism which DOESN'T CONTRADICT the Bible if you understand it as purely descriptive and not analytic. Again you are misunderstanding my use of the term "pagan." However, I might argue that the current science about the canyon IS pagan, wrongly imposed on the Bible just as Ptolemy's system was, and my objective is to try to make a case for how it could all have come about in a way that doesn't contradict the young earth. Yes and so did the Reformers come out of Catholicism. The main problem with the RCC is the papacy, and the official teachings that contradict the Bible, but there were always members of the RCC who relied on the Bible more than all that. That's how the Reformers got inspired after all. All I meant was that he was a rebel against the Ptolemaic assumptions held by the RCC over the Bible, which I'd already said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sigh. I'm beginning to think of you as the Master of the Non Sequitur. Saying that Copernicus was a rebel against the Ptolemaic assumptions of the RCC over the Bible does NOT imply that the Protestant Reformers were not geocentric. And they were rebels against the RCC too, in a different way. Yeh, so?

I didn't say the Bible was heliocentric. I said it takes a purely descriptive view of the heavenlies. It doesn't make scientific or analytic statements it simply describes things as we see them. Since it is from our point of view, the most natural scientific view would be geocentrism if you insist on trying to get a scientific view out of it, but why do that since the Bible itself doesn't?My argument has been that if the RCC hadn't brought Ptolemy's science into its official doctrine there would have been no need for a dispute with Copernicus or Galileo, because the Bible is not intended as a scientific presentation and nothing it says, which is strictly descriptive from our point of view, contradicts a heliocentric interpretation of the heavenlies. I think the whole problem has to do with treating the Bible's simple observations as if they were scientific. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, amen. 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.

Genesis, like all the Bible, was written for all people in all times in all cultures with all degrees of knowledge about everything.In relation to the cultures of its day it was written mostly as an answer to the idolatrous religions of all the different peoples, which it answers with a flat declaration of the one true God as Creator of everything. Cosmology is a very very small part of its concern. Genesis 1 has very little interest in cosmology at all. None of this is about cosmology, or any particular culture's point of view, it's about how God created everything. I'll let the Creator know your objections to His work. But again cosmology is not of any importance in Genesis 1. Because it's God's Word and whatever it says about the physical universe is true. But I don't think it has ANY aim at providing a scientific description of anything whatever. Edited by Faith, : correct quote code

In my scenario they were and there is no reason to suppose the intense heat reached to that level, especially if the entire region was soaked in Flood water as I hypothesize that it was. The blocks of tilted Supergroup also weren't metamorphosed, I assume for the same reason, but I still think the Vishnu contains the rubble from the Supergroup that is no longer in evidence AS Supergroup. Oddly, one of the layers of the Supergroup is metamorphosed, the Shinumo quartzite. Enough heat and pressure for that without affecting the others? I don't know but that's the lines I'm thinking along.Vishnu Basement Rocks - Wikipedia: Am I reading this right? Is this talking about erosion caused by the abrasion between lower and upper rocks? So, on top of the basement metamorphics and intrusives the contact with the sedimentary strata is a nonconformity, but on top of the tilted Supergroup it's an angular unconformity? Is that the idea? How would that compare with my Young Earth interpretation of three miles (about 5 km?) of sedimentary layers burying the Vishnu as it formed into schist. On this scenario only the upper two miles of that strata were then eroded away as the canyon was cut and the Grand Staircase as well. Three miles of sedimentary weight not enough "deep burial" to form schist? Unless it's all soaking in a handy-dandy worldwide Flood that then recedes, washing away a two-mile depth of those upper strata as described above. That shouldn't take more than a few months, with then some years after that to lithify the strata into rock etc. Meanwhile the Vishnu should have become schist under all that pressure plus the heat from the magma beneath, IMHO.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link. The bad version had been copy/pasted from an erroneous link in the Moose message - Also, to get the full form of the link one must use "peek" to get the full text.

Not to worry, it will all fit together eventually.Just this for now: So some say. I'll have to look it up again but one source who studied the Vishnu says it is made up of a huge range of different rocks. I ran across this earlier and mentioned it in one of these recent threads, guess I'll have to find it. Not at all unfortunate. It would solve the puzzle if you were right but everything I've found calls it a metamorphic rock requiring heat and pressure, such as this Google page:Its presence between nonmetamorphic rocks needs another explanation apparently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In all your ponderings about the Great Unconformity, how long the erosion of the lower surface took etc., why is it that the relative flatness of that surface, where it comes in contact with the strata above, is taken so for granted?I've brought this up many times and all I get is basically Why not? or I see no problem, or That's the way it is as if I'm asking an unreasonable question. But it doesn't matter how many millions or billions of years of erosion were involved there is no way to get such a flattish surface at the top of a lumpy bunch of schist or granite or folded strata.But in image after image we see the strata above laid down FLAT on these lumpy rocks, so the surface did have to be flattish. There would be no problem if we were talking about the surface of a mesa or butte or tepui, those are flat because the rock itself is flat or the exposed surface is flat. But on top of lumpy Vishnu or uptilted strata, no. Yes we see in some places that the harder rock, such as the quartzite, makes the surface irregular, and there are plenty of examples of less than perfect flatness that can be found, but still, look at the contact line in spite of those irregularities: overall it's flat / straight / horizontal. Flattish. Straightish. Then there are the cross sections, which are of course schematic, but why would anyone draw such inexorably straight lines if they didn't represent the reality well enough to justify it?So I've picked some examples that are of course familiar just so you'll know what I'm talking about. How-how-how could "erosion" of any type or length of time create such a flat surface? And, one might also ask, why did "erosion" stop where it did at that particular level? Why didn't it just keep on eroding downward, or create this flat surface at some other level?PLEASE. Erosion CANNOT be the explanation for this flatness. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, I'm very happy to know that the problem has been solved, and Shinumo quartzite is not metamorphic. One less problem to worry about.

You do NOT "understand [my] concern here!" Only on the top of a mesa or butte or tepui as I already said, or on a single-sediment deposit such as the great salt lake, or where the surface of a rock layer was washed clean and exposed, such as the Kaibab in the GC area. WHERE THE ROCK IS ALREADY NATURALLY FLAT! OTHERWISE NO! And neither can you! PLEASE stop treating me like a child and think about the point I'm making!FLAT is defined by the pictures I've posted. IT DID NOT LOOK ERODED, but that is NOT the same thing as I'm talking about here. It turned out that was a vertical surface that was not at all evident on the photo we were discussing, and only a few inches of it were seen there too. And I'd ask the same question about the actual contact line there as well, which can only be seen when the whole context is included in the picture: HOW ON EARTH COULD EROSION HAVE CREATED THAT STRAIGHT FLAT HORIZONTAL CONTACT LINE?Again, PLEASE stop talking down to me and think about the point I'm making! You have NOT addressed it, you've merely dismissed it with an irrelevant reference.All your detail does NOT deal with such basic questions!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would think it would depend on mitigating factors such as the presence of a cooling agent in the vicinity to retard the heat before it reaches the contact. Simple distance from the source of course already reduces its effect as it moves upward and outward.However, I think movement between the upper and lower rocks still has to be considered an important factor. And there may be other factors yet to be considered.From THIS SITE: And if we're talking magma released underwater so much the more quickly. Why do you make that distinction? ALL the rocks would have been saturated in the Flood, upper AND lower. The magma that intruded from below would have been released into soaked sediments. ABE: Surely, even if you consider the Flood to be a fantasy you can entertain such a hypothetical scenario.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Blatant denial.You aren't thinking about the pictures I posted.ABE: You can bring up all kinds of exceptions, as I already acknowledged, but the problem is still how to explain the vast majority that exhibit such a flat horizontal contact -- and even the exceptions are MOSTLY flat and horizontal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

IT SHOULDN"T BE FLAT ANYWHERE! NOT ANYWHERE! IT'S A LUMPY BUMPY POKY SPIKY IRREGULAR SURFACE. IT SHOULD NOT ERODE FLAT ANYWHERE, LET ALONE AS FLAT AS YOU CAN SEE IT IS IN THE PHOTOS I POSTED.