Karen G. Jensen wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> 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?
We have been through this before! I don't "have faith" in radiometrics, but I do
consider them capable of giving useful and consistent numerical ages of rocks.
Even without radiometric dating there is plenty of reason to believe that the earth
is immensely old. This was recognised by the late 18th century. All radiometric
techniques is allow us to quantify it. Even if if they are provided invalid, there
would be no reason to go back and say that the earth is only a few thousand years
old.
> 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.
Sediments are generally deposited horizontally, Steno recognised this in the 17th
century!
> 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.
The sequence may well be monotonous - thick turbidite successions usually are.
That is why they are called "flysch", an Austrian word meaning boring. Only
kidding..... Monotonous or not, have they been metamorphosed? To what grade?
> >
> >> 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.
Still your interpretation that the flood was world-wide in our understanding of the
word. A year long global inundation would be expected to do geological work of
course. The problem is that the geological record does not support such an event.
That is why geologists stopped using the flood to explain the bulk of the
geological record by the end of the 18th century. Leonardo da Vinci recognised a
lot of these in the 15th century. The sort of evidence that convinced them was the
sort that has been discussed by Glenn, Steve, Kevin, Pim and others ad nauseum, so
I won't repeat it here. The only people who have tried to argue otherwise do so
because their theological stance forces them to do so
> And it says that the ordeal passed in about a year. That is why I say it
> is not consistent with mega-time.
Only if you try and explain the entire geological record by the flood.
>
>
> Your sister in Christ,
>
> Karen
God bless
Jonathan