Thank you for sharing more on those salt deposits. Very interesting!
I'll be interested in more on Lake McLeod if you find the book.
>
>> And now, to get back to the GVS:
>>
[....]
>> The Great Valley Sequence is 10 to 20 km thick. The lower part is
>> considered to be Tithonian (Upper Jurassic) and the higher parts Turonian
>> and on up to Maastrictian (Upper Cretaceous) and even Danian (Lower
>> Paleocene). This is usually described as representing about 80 million
>> years. The folded areas I saw were in a locality in the lower portion, but
>> the folding probably happened in conjunction with the tilting of the entire
>> sequence (after it had finished being laid down horizontally). Do you
>> believe induration could wait many millions of years?
>
>Several components here to your question. As I understand you, your
>argument runs
>like this: The thin limestone beds are not brecciated. Thus they must
>have been
>soft when deformed. Yes, it is possible for sediments to remain
>uncemented for
>many millions of years,
many millions? you really believe that? by faith in radiometrics?
especially if only shallowly buried. Obviously not the
>case with your sediments though (12 km is not shallow burial to me!). You
>say that
>the sequence was completely deposited before deformation began.
The current (as far as I know) interpretation of its geological history is
that it was deposited horizontally offshore -- the distance is debated, one
view based on paleomag is that it was a little south of the paleo-equator!
-- then it was accreted to North America as the "conveyor belt" of seafloor
spreading and subduction brought it up against California.
With 12 km of
>burial I imagine things would be quite lithified but at those sort of depths
>brittle beds start deforming in a ductile manner. Your rocks should have been
>metamorphosed to lower greenschist metamorphic facies. Is this the case?
>
No, it is called "monotonous" clear to the bottom, but overlies metamorphic
seafloor materials -- mafics.
>
>> To me it looks like mega-deposition and mega-tilting, but not mega-time.
>> Consistent with Genesis 7-8.
>
>No Karen, not consistent with Genesis 7-8, but with only what with your
>reading is
>of it. My Bible does not say anything about mega deposition or mega tilting.
>
It says water prevailed for 150 days, and covered the highest hills. Water
on a whirling sphere can be expected to do geological work. That is why I
think mega-deposition and mega-tilting are consistent with it.
And it says that the ordeal passed in about a year. That is why I say it
is not consistent with mega-time.
Your sister in Christ,
Karen