TrueCreation said:
quote:
Considering Evaporites - This is often credited as being from long term vaporation as the cause of sun shine for instance. Though the high Chemical purity shows that it wasn't exposed to dry dusty climates for long periods of time. A creatinist interperetation of this would be, they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity a hydrothermal deposit. Earlier I remember there was a comment saying that some of the grand canyon was formed from uplift (suggesting magmatic activity and possibly volcanic or heated sediment floors).
There are several problems with the hydrothermal deposit hypothesis:
1. There are areas where hydrothermal deposition is occurring now. The deposition of halite, gypsum and calcite are not associated with these deposits. Typically these are mineral deposits such as sulfates, oxides and silicates of iron, copper and manganese. These mineral deposits are not associated with salt deposits, which would tend to falsify the hydrothermal hypothesis.
2. Hydrothermal deposits are not in large banded planes like we see with evaporites.
3. The energy associated with hydrothermal events leaves its marks on the geology of the area. We do not find this evidence around salt deposits.
4. We have salt domes up to 1 km thick which is difficult to explain by hydrothermal deposition. Water must have 10 times the salt content of seawater for deposition to take place. I do not think that you have to do the math to see the problems with forming huge salt deposits over short periods of time from mixing of super saturated hot and cold seawater.
5. Evaporite deposits are found with things that we see on the surface such as animal footprints, raindrop impressions and cracks from drying which you would not find at the bottom of the sea.
6. We currently have basins where evaporates are forming [Ojo de Liebre in Baja California (Mexico) or the 20km long drowned river valley Bocana de Virrila (Peru)] and these deposits look like the evaporite deposits we see in the geological record.
7. The rocks over which we see evaporite deposits are not like the basalts we find on the sea floor.
Much, much more can be found at the following website. Go about 1/3 of the way down to get to the evaporite section. While you are there read some of the other challenges that flood geology has and maybe you can come back to explain again why science supports a global flood and young earth.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/f.htm
Furthermore your claim that, the high Chemical purity shows that it wasn't exposed to dry dusty climates for long periods of time is just not so. Study after study has shown that salt deposits contain exactly the types of impurities one would expect from subarial (surface) deposits. Below is a small sampling courtesy of Glenn Morton. Glenn is a former young earth creationist who wrote articles for the CRS until his work in the petroleum industry convinced him that the world was old and that there had been no global flood. His site is here
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/.
quote:
"Samples of diapiric and bedded salt from the Gulf Coastal Province were studied for their pollen-spores content. Twenty-four different species were observed among them one new genus Gordoniella atwateri. The microfloral remains also include forms of algae (Chroolepidaceae or Mikrothyriaceae) and fungi."
Ulrich Jux, The Palynologic Age of Diapiric and Bedded Salt, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, Geological Bulletin 38, October, 1961, p. 1
"Abundances of magnetic spherules in 26 Silurian and Permian salt samples are very similar to abundances in recent collections from the atmosphere.
Thomas A. Mutch, "Abundances of Magnetic Spherules in Silurian and Permian Salt Samples", Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1 1966 p. 325
"The sedimentation rate of the A-1 Evaporite of Michigan was determined by analysis of micrometeorites found as inclusions in the halite deposit "A sedimentation rate of .01 to .4 centimeters per year was calculated for the salt based on a constant influx rate of meteoritic material of 1 x 10 4 tons per year. This sedimentation rate is much slower than previously reported sedimentation rates for salt "
~James Matthew Barnett, Sedimentation Rate of Salt Determined by Micrometeorite Analysis, M. S. Thesis, Western Michigan University, 1983, p. i.
regards,
Joe T.
™ Version 4.2
