Continuing about 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?
...
>> 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!
Yes. Nevertheless, for a while in the 1950's the GVS was interpreted as a
sloping offshore deposit (down the side of the shelf). That view has been
abandoned, and its slope (which is east-dipping anyway!) is considered to
have been caused by the accreation.
>
>> 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?
>
No. It overlies metamorphosed sediments, but it is not at all
metamorphosed. The limestone nodules in it are diagenetic, but there is no
metamorphism.
>> >
>> >> 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.
Clearly.
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.
The currently accepted reading of the geological record does not support it.
>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
>
The only people? Forced? For me it happened very differently. I believed
the evolution-long ages scenario past the Masters level (having heard
nothing else).
After becoming a Christian, I wondered where the fossil record fits in
Scripture. Reading Genesis 1 with paleontology in mind, I thought maybe
each day represented part of the geological record, but quickly realized
that this doesn't work, geologically or theologically. When I saw the
concept of a worldwide water catastrophe, I saw that this explains the vast
layers and the fossil record better than any long ages model could.
>> 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.
>
Almost. With considerable geological work when the dry land appeared (Gen
1:9) and in the aftermath of the Flood, which still continues.
Mark 4:9
Your sister in Christ,
Karen