Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

By economical, I assume you mean dirt cheap. They use ton and tons and tons of that stuff on our roads in the winter. Sometimes they mix it with water, but usually they just spread it out in it's raw form.

Actually economical is what the web page said. I forget to put it in quotes but the blue text is directly quoted from the web page.

In any case it would take years to deposit that much salt even with the flood waters boiling constantly so it is clear evidence that the earth is more than 6,000-10,000 years old and the Noah's flood was local event.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

In any case it would take years to deposit that much salt even with the flood waters boiling constantly so it is clear evidence that the earth is more than 6,000-10,000 years old and the Noah's flood was local event.

So lets say the world is older than 10,000 years. Where does the salt deposits suggest that the world is hundreds of thousands or million or billions of years old?

 

[Mistermystery]

I would say your the foolish one. For a christian to say that Paul and Jesus got it wrong is the epitome of absurdity. Peter tells us that your taking things that are difficult to understand and twisting them to your own destruction.

I would first of all say that you're wrong, and secondly, I really don't understand why you can't doubt certain parts of the bible.

 

[Mistermystery]

So lets say the world is older than 10,000 years. Where does the salt deposits suggest that the world is hundreds of thousands or million or billions of years old?

Hey, you know what? Maybe the salt deposits don't show that, but maybe other methods do that.

 

[Gracchus]

I would say your the foolish one. For a christian to say that Paul and Jesus got it wrong is the epitome of absurdity. Peter tells us that your taking things that are difficult to understand and twisting them to your own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15-16
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

I understand that a dead seed doesn't sprout. I understand that people in the first century (and even in later centuries) believed that sown seeds were dead. And I understand that Jesus and Paul were wrong when they said seeds had to die in order to sprout. I do not fault them for not knowing that life is metabolism, process, and not some mysterious spirit that leaves when the body dies. What part of that is hard to understand? What part of that don't you understand? Or would you care to enter evidence that dead seeds do sprout?

And by the way, I am not a Christian. I respect the teachings of Jesus too much to be a Christian.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So lets say the world is older than 10,000 years. Where does the salt deposits suggest that the world is hundreds of thousands or million or billions of years old?

I have measured evaporation rates of water at room temperature when it is not boiling at about 0.1 kg/m[sup]2[/sup] per hour. Given that there are 30,000 trillion tons of salt in the various layers in Michigan I caculate that it would have taken at least 2.5 million years of total time for evaporation of the water and probably more. There were periods when salt was not being deposited and other processes were occuring since the salt is interspersed within other geologic layers so overall it is easy to see how millons of years were required to deposit all that salt. Even if the total salt estimate is high by as much as a factor 10 and the evaporation rate I used was low by a fact of 2 because of winds, hundreds of thousands of years were involved and there is simply no way to deposit all that salt in 6,000 years let alone during a flood year. Let's not forget the delicate Silurian reefs also found in Michigan's geololgy trapping the Silurian salt deposits.
http://www.silurian.com/geology/reefs.htm
http://www.mpm.edu/reef/great-lakes-reefs.html

These reefs took time to grow and boiling the water to speed up evaporation rates simply won't do and still couldn't evaporate that much water during a flood year.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

I have measured evaporation rates of water at room temperature when it is not boiling at about 0.1 kg/m[sup]2[/sup] per hour.

What were the conditions that day? I know that my wife is real picky about when she will allow her carpets to be cleaned, because the evaporation rate is quite a bit different from one day to the next.

Also, what evidence do you have that the conditions and evaporation rate in your living room was the same as it was "billions" of years ago in the great lakes area?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What were the conditions that day? I know that my wife is real picky about when she will allow her carpets to be cleaned, because the evaporation rate is quite a bit different from one day to the next.

Also, what evidence do you have that the conditions and evaporation rate in your living room was the same as it was "billions" of years ago in the great lakes area?

Actually I made the measurements in my lab under conditions ranging from 20 to 32 C at relative humidities ranging from 20 to 90% RH. 100 g/cm[sup]2[/sup] per hour was an upper limit at high temperature and high RH. I did not force evaporation with high air flow. In the real world evaporation rates would sometimes be higher for instance during the day with the sun shinning and sometimes lower, for instance at night when there was no sun and the RH increased as the temperature dropped, and very low if there was ice during the winter and would increase when there was significant wind. However, evaporation will slow down as the salt concentration increases decreasing the equilbrium vapor pressure of the water. Even if I underestimated evaporation rates by an order of magnitude we are still talking about hundreds of thousands of years. I'll see if I can find some real world data when I get time.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[MSBS]

Corn God? Seed God maybe but didn't corn came from the Americas? In any case I agree that this belongs in appologetics.
the frumious Bandersnatch

Not much to do with the topic, but I believe that in Europe the term "corn" is used as a general term like we use grain in the US. So a corn god would be a god of the edible seed producing grasses.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Incidently, Corn God would make an excellent band name.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What were the conditions that day? I know that my wife is real picky about when she will allow her carpets to be cleaned, because the evaporation rate is quite a bit different from one day to the next.

Also, what evidence do you have that the conditions and evaporation rate in your living room was the same as it was "billions" of years ago in the great lakes area?

I came up with some numbers on evaporation from large bodies of water. The following calculation will probably underestimate the time it took the salt deposits to form and perhaps underestimate it by quite a bit.

Here is the water evaporation site.
http://www.grow.arizona.edu/water/temperature/evaporation.shtml

In Tuscon it would be about 70 inches per year from a large body of water (100 time 0.7).

I found an area of 170,000 sq. miles for the salt beds.

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=17&category=business

This is about 440,000 sq. km. So lets say the water evaporated from an inland sea with an area of 500,000 sq km. Since it is theorized to have been warmer during this time let's double the evaporation for a large body of water in Tuscon to 140 inches per year. This means that about 1 billion acre feet of water per year could have evaporated. That is about 1.2 x 10[sup]15[/sup] kg. Quite a lot.
Now lets assume that the estimate of salt under Michigan of 30,000 trillion tons

http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html

is high by a factor of three and there are only 10,000 trillion tons of salt. We will round to metric tons and have 10[sup]19[/sup]kg. If the water was 3.5% NaCl, salt would deposit when 90% of the water evaporated so 0.9 x 10[sup]19[/sup]/0.035 kg of water = 2.6 x 10[sup]20[/sup] kg, would have to evaporate to deposit this much salt.
If we divide the water loss needed by the water lost estimate per year we get about 208,000 years. Of course lots of other things had to happen, such as the growth of the limestone reefs that trapped the water and the other deposits that are over, under and interspersed with the salts so the entire process would have almost certainly required millions of years.

The boiling flood calculation

If we redo the boiling calculation with these numbers, using a boiling away rate of 1 kg/m[sup]2[/sup]-sec we find that if the entire sea were boiling 1.6 x 10[sup]19[/sup] kg of water would boil away per year and we could deposit the salt in about 16 years if the "flood" waters were not less concentrated in salt than the oceans and boiled the entire time.

Of course this would almost certainly prevented the limestone reefs from forming. It would require about 6 x 10[sup]23[/sup] J of heat (added in edit: Oops, It should be 6 x 10[sup]26[/sup] J, I forgot to convert kg to grams before doing the heat calculation) which is enough to heat the entire atmosphere of the earth by about 100 C(actually a lot more heat than that when calculated correctly). There is also a lot of other salt in deposits around the world to be accounted for somehow.

In any case there is not nearly enough time to deposit all this salt during the "flood year" even if the water was boiling constantly and the salt were the only deposits in the area and there was not nearly enough time to deposit the salt in any normal way if the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

(Added in edit, 30,000 trillion tons does seem high to me but I find it in a couple of places and no lower estimates. If the number is off by 30 and there is only 1000 trillion tons it would still take at least 20,000 years to evaporate and more than 1 year to boil away. If anyone knows exactly where this number comes from other than the salt institute website I would appreciate it)
the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

In Tuscon it would be about 70 inches per year from a large body of water (100 time 0.7).

So, if the evaporation rate was 70 inches per year, how much salt would that create in a years time?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So, if the evaporation rate was 70 inches per year, how much salt would that create in a years time?

That would depend on how deep the water was and how saturated and of course the area. Salt will not start to deposit until the concentration reaches about 35%. At first no salt will deposit. If you start with 70 inches of normal sea water with a salt concentration of 3.5% salt will start to precipitate after about 54 inches evaporate. To calculate the amount that deposits you must know the area as well.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

That would depend on how deep the water

Ok, lets say for arguement sake the world is millions or billions of years old. How does that falsify that the flood of Noah being a world wide flood? A world wide flood would not have any effect upon the salt deposits.

Biodiversification is still the best evidence I see. I do not see where the salt deposits make all that much of a difference.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ok, lets say for arguement sake the world is millions or billions of years old. How does that falsify that the flood of Noah being a world wide flood? A world wide flood would not have any effect upon the salt deposits.

Biodiversification is still the best evidence I see. I do not see where the salt deposits make all that much of a difference.

Perhaps I should have specified that salt deposits falsify the YEC version of the worldwide flood in which the earth less than 10,000 years old and the world's geology was mostly laid down by a global flood. This is the version of the worldwide flood that YEC organizations from AiG to Dr. Dino believe.

I agree that biodiversity or perhaps biogeographic diversity may be the best evidence against a worldwide flood occuring a few thousand years on an earth with geology that developed over eons as stated by mainstream science.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

Perhaps I should have specified that salt deposits falsify the YEC version of the worldwide flood in which the earth less than 10,000 years old and the world's geology was mostly laid down by a global flood. This is the version of the worldwide flood that YEC organizations from AiG to Dr. Dino believe.

Remember the challange to find just one creation scientist that bases his belief that there was not an old world on scientific evidence and not religious belief. I could not find one creation scientist that bases that opinion on science.

Even creation scientists like Dr Wise admit that the evidence for a old world is overwelming. I use to think the world was 12,000 years old, untell I looked at the evidence that it was much older than that.

The idea that salt deposits were created by a flood is right up there with the idea that Kangaroos can swim. They seem to both have about the same amount of thought and investigation put into it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Glenn Morton posted on Salt and the Global Flood on theology web a while back. Unfortunately I can't seem to link to it but it is on about the 3rd page of Natural Sciences. On that thread he posted a map of salt deposits worldwide which I have attached(the salt is in black).

On the thread Glenn discussed evidences showing that the salt was deposited slowly as water evaporated over long periods of time. One of them is the presence of pollens in the salt layers

"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.
"The phytologic data obtained indicate a Rhaetic-Liassic (late Triassic-early Jurassic) age for the diapiric salt of Texas (Grand Saline), Louisiana (Winnfield, Avery Island, Weeks Island, Jefferson Island), and the bedded salt (Louann Salt) in northern Louisiana. There seems to be no difference in age between the salt in the interior belt of salt domes and the one stretching along the coastal region. The Louann salt is most probably the mother source bed from which the tremendous amount of diapiric salt originated." ~ Ulrich Jux, The Palynologic Age of Diapiric and Bedded Salt, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, Geological Bulletin 38, October, 1961, p. 1

Of course this is not the only salt deposit with pollens. Permian pollens are found in the thick salt beds in the Opeche Shale found in the Geologic Column in North Dakota.

So here we have even further evidence that these salts were formed by long periods of evaporation. There is simply no way that the salt layers, which are interspersed between supposedly flood deposited layers many different places and in many different geologic eras worldwide were deposited by global flood.

How could layers above and below the salt layers have been deposited by a global flood if the salt could not have been? A YEC interpretion explaining how the various salt layers could be "flood deposits" is awaited but apparently not forthcoming.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm baack! I thought I would just bump this old thread of mine and since it refers to Glenn Morton's web page and posts and I see the he is posting here now. Hi Glenn. I'll send you a private message soon.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It appears that this total falsification of the global flood will forever remain beyond the ability of any YEC to answer.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh ye of small and narrow minds...