Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood

Frumious Bandersnatch · #91 12th May 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

I am going to try and take a guess at what your talking about. Are you trying to say that a world wide flood is only a YEC belief and that GAP's do not beleive in a world wide flood? If that is what you are trying to say, then your wrong.

I know we have discussed this many times. I am talking about the YEC beliefs that
1. The earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago.
2. A significant fraction of the earth's geological record, especially the sedimentary rock record, was deposited by a single global flood.
3. The flood was a naturally caused event that left significant scientific evidence.

These beliefs are central to the mythology that YECs misleadingly call "creation science". The extensive salt deposits in geological record are one of many total falsifications of the YEC global flood along with paleontology and biogeography and many others that we have discussed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1161...d-archive.html

As far as I can tell you don't believe in the YEC version of the young earth and global flood so many of these things aren't a problem to you. In fact, I recall you specifically stating that biogeography is a strong falsification of the YEC flood model. Still you chime in, sometimes rather ambigously on many threads where the YEC flood model is discussed. Rather than get distracted here by gap theory why don't you open a thread, if there isn't one already, specifically detailing your version of the "global" flood and we can discuss whether or not there is any evidence for it.

The frumious Bandersnatch

JohnR7 · #92 12th May 2005, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

I am talking about the YEC beliefs that

Ok, then my guess at what you were talking about was correct.

WarriorAngel · #93 12th May 2005, 12:26 PM

UM...ever stop to consider the ocean lost alot of salt due to mixing with fresh waters ...?

AND because the ocean also lost alot of salt...ON LAND? After the flood.

Frumious Bandersnatch · #94 12th May 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

UM...ever stop to consider the ocean lost alot of salt due to mixing with fresh waters ...?

AND because the ocean also lost alot of salt...ON LAND? After the flood.

Mixing with fresh water would reduce the salt concentration meaning it would take even longer for evaporation to produce the thick layers of salt that are seen. You "explanation" makes things worse for you rather than better.

The frumious Bandersnatch

Loudmouth · #95 12th May 2005, 10:48 PM

[quote=WarriorAngel]UM...ever stop to consider the ocean lost alot of salt due to mixing with fresh waters ...?{/quote]

What Frumious said.

AND because the ocean also lost alot of salt...ON LAND? After the flood.

If this is how those evaporites got there, then why do we find them below the fossils supposedly laid down by the flood?

notto · #96 13th May 2005, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

UM...ever stop to consider the ocean lost alot of salt due to mixing with fresh waters ...?

AND because the ocean also lost alot of salt...ON LAND? After the flood.

http://geology.com/

You really don't know how any of this works, do you.

How did the ocean lose salt due to mixing with fresh water? What process caused this? Please be specific.

How did the salt deposits form? Please be specific (and perhaps actually address the specifics of the thing you are referring to - composition, location, mechanisms, pictures, etc). You seem to be simply stating things out of ignorance. Why do you continue to do this? Do you want to understand this stuff better or just continue to let your ignorance guide you?

dad · #97 13th May 2005, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

How does a flood deposit think layers of salt? Salt deposits form by slow evaporation of water that gets trapped such as in the dead sea. Pollen grains are found in salt because plants growing the region put pollen in the air which settles into the water as it is slowly evaporating. Some creationist scenarios involve a hydrothermal origin for the salt deposits. This is refuted because the salt deposits contain pollen, sometimes contain delicate varves and are not near any source of hyrothermal brines.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Theb...sense.html#A14

The frumious Bandersnatch

What I had in mind was say massive ammounts of salt from a fountain of the deep, in some areas especially, maybe sort of like putting a few teaspoons of salt in warm water to gargle. When some polen is also added in there, and it settles, and we drain off most of the water, we have the mix. If we wanted to get fancy we could have a rapid atmospheric change or something producing great wind as well. This could blow pollen, perhaps mix it in tere pretty good, and result in some patterns, depending how often etc the wind blew, and directions.
Now if you can rule out this, there may be a few more lines of defense for a flood scenario. If we can rule all of them out, then there is always the very different pre flood earth, which may need to be brought into play instead, or as well.

dad · #98 13th May 2005, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

Here is a page with discussion of 200,000 annual salt varves in the Castile formation.
http://www.unm.edu/~ryand/praedial/praedial.p7.html

The frumious Bandersnatch

How about this one. (?) Rather than an annual thing, varves were a pre flood daily thing? Rough calculation, it would only then take 547 years. (200,000 days) Today, of course, the way these things are formed usually would be anually.
What if the moisture coming up from the earth before the flood (to water stuff instead of rain), pre flood world wind patterns, etc simply gave us the patterns we now see?
"Varves are formed by seasonal variations in sedimentary deposition.The lighter band is laid down during the summer when a greater flow of water from inflowing streams brings coarse,sandy material into the lake.The larger particles settle rather quickly but the tiny clay particles remain in suspension due to the agitation of the lake water caused by the inflowing streams and also by wind." http://www.reasons.org/chapters/aust...newsletter.pdf

Valkhorn · #99 13th May 2005, 01:06 AM

I see how it goes:

Creationist: But you see if there was a global flood then x, y, or z would have to have happened!
Everyone else: You don't realize, there never was a global flood.
*everyone else refutes x, y, and z repeatedly*
Creationist: Give me the proof there never was a global flood!
Everyone else: OK. Here's exhibit A.
Creationist: Why... that has to be skewed because I know there was a global flood!
Everyone else: Skewed? Do you think it's a conspiracy by millions of scientists over 200 years that they haven't found a single shred of evidence for the global flood?
Creationist: Of course it is! They want to take god out of the world!
Everyone else: No that's not the case... Here's exhibit B if you want.
Creationist: But wait. *repeats original claims x, y, and/or z* So there!
Everyone else: Didn't you see we refuted that ages ago!
Creationist: So there, there really was a global flood!
Everyone else: You're not listening are you?
Creationist: Because the grand canyon had to be cut in a year!
Everyone else: What?... wait... just answer me this... do you have any extrabiblical evidence that hasn't been refuted?

*thus continues a cycle of PRATTs*

Valkhorn · #**100** 13th May 2005, 01:07 AM

How about this one. (?) Rather than an annual thing, varves were a pre flood daily thing? Rough calculation, it would only then take 547 years. (200,000 days) Today, of course, the way these things are formed usually would be anually.
What if the moisture coming up from the earth before the flood (to water stuff instead of rain), pre flood world wind patterns, etc simply gave us the patterns we now see?

*red emboldened items added for effect in showing that dad is only guessing and has no idea what he's talking about*