Karen G. Jensen wrote:
> Dear Brother Jonathan,
>
> Continuing about the GVS,
>
> >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.
Point taken. I had understood you to say that the sediments were laid down on a
steep angle. My mistake obviously. I think Steno would be happy too!
> >>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.
The literature on the GVS which I have looked up, especially the work by Ingersol
(spelling?), speaks about zeolite to pumpellyite-prehnite facies metamorphism (a
bit lower grade than the greenschist I nominated), typical of burial to those sort
of depths.
> >> >> 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.
The "currently accepted interpretation" has been current for 200 years. This does
not guarantee it future success of course, but does mean that it has well stood the
passage of time.
> >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.
Thanks for the insight on your own journey, such details help illuminate the
process we call go through to understanding. Did you do this independently or in
conjunction with a church with which you believed? If the former you are a very
rare beast indeed, in the latter, you have made my point?
If it was through a church teaches acceptance of a young earth then prior to your
joining you had no reason to think otherwise. If you had come to faith through a
church which did not teach this I don't think you would have had to make that
change.
Given the diversity of opinions in geology, one would expect at least some people
to defend a young earth and/or a world wide catastrophe in say 4000 BC, if there
was any scientific evidence for it, regardless of the religious implications.
However they don't. Even most Christian geologists don't. I must have met or
know of professionally close on a thousand geologists. Perhaps 10% of them are
Christians. Only a few (five?) of these hundred or so are YECs. They are all YECs
because they think that the Bible requires them to believe so. Some have admitted
to me that this is despite the fact they have not a shred of geological evidence to
support them. In contrast, if people don't believe that the Bible categorically
teaches a young earth, then they don't have have to read the geological data in the
same way. I would argue that they are free to follow the evidence where it takes
them, in a way that non-believers and YECs alike cannot. However none that I know
of do. The burden on Christians who work in such cognitive dissonance is very
great, Luke 11:46.
Remember too that the people who demonstrated in the 18th century that the
geological record was not the result of a single, world wide flood were, in the
English speaking world, generally devout Christians who believed in a world wide
flood. Having concluded that the geological record was not the result of the flood
they did not abandon their faith, but continued to practice it. They simply
realised that it was incorrect to explain the geological record in terms of a
single event (Biblical or not). The same happened in the 19th century when the
drift deposits interpreted as being flood were recognised as glacial debris.
> >> 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.
An what criteria do you use to separate flood from post flood sediments (apart from
biostratigraphy) when much the same types of rocks occur in both pre-Neogene (flood
rocks by your definition) and Neogene rocks (your post-flood rocks) , just as they
do in both Precambrian (your pre-flood) and Palaeozoic-Paleogene (your flood
deposits again) rocks?
> Mark 4:9
> Your sister in Christ,
>
> Karen
In Christ
Jonathan
Answers in Genesis? Yes! (But are we asking the right questions?)