Why flood geology doesn't work, oil exploration as the example

Salt lakes are produced by leaching salt from the ground and not by the reverse. That's not the only way to remove water from salt. The process Faith describes sound something like reverse osmosis. But that is not a possible explanation either.I can imagine, with some difficulty, that something deep underground might serve as a semi-permeable surface for reverse osmosis to occur at some high pressure place deep underground, but that imagining probably reflects my lack of knowledge of geology.As you've suggested, desalination by seepage cannot occur above ground with just atmospheric pressure to drive the process. Seepage is just going to pick up calcium, magnesium, etc. making the water hard.

If I had read such an article, I would have known immediately that seepage was not contributing directly to desalination, and I would have look further for the role that seepage was actually described to have had. Perhaps you simply don't have enough background knowledge to actually read a scientific article. You've certainly admitted to that before.When you are not capable of vetting what you read, you are highly likely to end up with a 'quote mine' which is simply a quote or summation from article that is actually contrary to what the article actually says. Quote mines looks a lot like lying, but often they are simple mistakes. I like to be pretty slow on the draw with the 'L' word, but sometimes in the heat of the argument I have thrown it. I'm not sure why this is an issue. Is it a problem or thousands of years of non activity despite what would be a hugely higher velocity of continental drift using your preferred time period? Do you know enough geology to say whether you've encountered a problem? How do you know there has been no seismic activity?As long as we're changing the subject, what effect do you think demonstrating that you cannot read properly has on your credibility in other threads that are strictly discussions about what you've read? Hint. It ain't good.

As you have worded it, I agree. But what about situations where the water introduced into the situation is carrying more than the saturation amount of salt? This could happen because of tiny particles of salt suspended in the water, or because the water is mechanically transporting chunks of salt. Maybe even because the water flowing into the basin as at higher temperature than the water in the basin. In those cases if the transporting water seeps away, perhaps after cooling, salt in some form or another, can left behind.However, it is clear that none of this is what is discussed in the wikipedia article.Endorheic basin - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Normally, water that has accrued in a drainage basin eventually flows out through rivers or streams on the Earth's surface or by underground diffusion through permeable rock, ultimately ending up in the oceans. However, in an endorheic basin, rain (or other precipitation) that falls within it does not flow out but may only leave the drainage system by evaporation and seepage. The bottom of such a basin is typically occupied by a salt lake or salt pan.

---

Seepage is a way for water to leave and of course the water must leave to produce a salt pan. But the article says nothing about seepage increasing the amount of salt, or that seepage alone could produce a salt lake. You have to get to that point by a 'motivated reading'. That is, the kind of reading you would do to prove that the theory of evolution is responsible for Holocaust, or that the RCC is responsible for Lincoln's assassination, or that hating Jews for their religious practices is not anti-semitic, or that mutations do not add diversity, or ... (cue up the heading for Faith's next thread).

I disagree about the damage. All humans err, and an error is not evidence that the speaker is wrong on every issue. Deliberate lies damage suggest that the speaker has no case at all, because he could have made an alternative argument.

Re: when is a false statement a lie?My answer: When the alternative is that the person is so rock stupid (intended) that using that as an excuse is just too difficult to believe. In this case, I can see where someone who does not read very well could make the mistake Faith made with the Wikipedia article. Totally understandable. But at some point, you have to lift your foot off of a person's neck after they are down. Of course, I am not the one Faith called a liar. You are. So it was your call, not mine.I think Faith came as close as she felt comfortable with backing down when she admitted to RAZD that she had no response, and when she talked about underestimating 'YEC creativity'. I suspect that her dissembling after that was an attempt to save some face. As was the change of subject to lack of tectonic activity.