Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood

[dad]

Dad, if it's not falsifiable it's not science. That's why the supernatural will never be considered a scientific answer, and that's why God is never a scientific answer.

Not by your chosen cultish, Godless definition, of course, no. The root word from which we get scince is one that means 'knowledge', I think I just read recently. Not 'guesses', or 'falsifiable by box theology'.
Here are a few thoughts on this.
"What is science? This is a very reasonable question, but unfortunately it isn't easy to provide a simple, definitive answer because there is no entity with the authority to define science. Coming up with a proper definition of science is not unlike coming up with a proper definition of other human institutions, like religion or family: there is so much going on that long, complex books are written in an effort to explain it all - and still people disagree.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_index.htm
SCI'ENCE, n. L. scientia, from scio, to know.
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
http://www.studylight.org/dic/kjd/view.cgi?number=T4954
SCIENCE
si'-ens:
This word as found in the King James Version means simply "knowledge." "Science" occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Daniel 1:4, "children .... understanding science" (yodhe`edha`ath, "those who understand science"). The meaning of the term here is "knowledge," "wisdom." The only other occurrence of "science" is in the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:20, "avoiding .... oppositions of science falsely so called," tes pseudonumou gnoseos, "the falsely called gnosis"). "Science" is the translation of the Greek gnosis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered "knowledge." The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted.
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7700

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Evidently we have salt water and fresh water. The earth is covered with mostly salt water.

Where did the salt to make sea water salty come from?

Underground.

If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

The salt in the oceans has been carried off the land by rivers over millions of years. Salt is lost from the oceans through albitization of basalt on the sea floor and overall the system is near equilibrium.

It takes time for salt to deposit from ocean water as the ocean evaporates.Formations like the Silurian Salts in Michigan occur because reefs developed that trapped sea water while evaporated leaving thick salt deposits. The deposits look exactly like those forming today in evaporation basins. It takes at least 20 years to deposit a meter of salt even with unrealistical favorable assumptions about evaporation rates and in some places the salt is hundred of feet thick so attributing the deposits containing the salt to the flood year as most YEC groups do is purely ridiculous.
http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html

From the Salina (late Silurian) salt beds we are assured of a salt supply of some trillion tons. Beds of pure rock salt 400 to 1600 feet thick, with additional thinner beds alternating with shales, dolomites, and gypsum, underly the Southern Peninsula.

Further the salt deposits in Michigan are surrounded by delicate Silurian reefs that could not have grown in or even survived intact in a worldwide flood that was rearranging all the earth's geology as YEC claim that it did.

FB

 

[dad]

You fail to see how the supernatural cannot, and will never be Science.

Science deals with what we can know, what we can see, observe, test, or measure

Some of us can see more than others. Some of us only chose to see so much.

You cannot do this with the supernatural. You cannot say that x circumstances at y time will always yield a spirit.

You can't, no, because you know nothing of it. Others know somewhat more, and can say how certain spiritual laws operate, invariably! But of course we all have our limitations in our knowledge of things spiritual, being of this temporal physical universe. Lots of wonderful surprises in store for us in that coming world.

You cannot determine the mass of a spirit, you cannot measure a ghost

You cannot limit them to physical laws and measurements, no. As I say, present box science is pitifully limited in certain key areas.

). When you invoke the supernatural, you cannot invoke any rules whatsoever

Of course you can. Just cause you may not know them. Certain things like 'we reap what we sow', or 'whoever calleth on the Lord shall be saved', 'call unto Me, and I will answer', etc work better than ma bell.

After all, if we are to invoke the supernatural, then I'm going to have to invent (since I don't believe in one) a god which invalidates yours, and which can actually be supported by physical evidence.

Go ahead, it wouldn't be tried and proven over countless generations. If it's a boy, how about calling him 'dagon'? Or if you chose a girl, perhaps 'Granny,? Or if you want neutral sex, may I reccomend 'Creator Speck'!

 

[Split Rock]

How do we know there was even a lot of evaporation then? What with a different atmosphere, and therefore probably ionosphere, etc. How much of this stuff even happened pre fall? In that case, we would even have some possible spiritual light, and totally different principles at work there. Our present sun, and radiation, and all give us our present conditions, like evaporation. What if it was much less or more then? Why only millimeters? I envision a new planet, not compressed by the flood, and time, etc, where likely the whole world was very different. Besides, it wasn't perhaps the evaporation then only that led to the pattern? If it was in or near an old sea, for example, we may have had things like tidal action, wind currents localized, flood plains, tidal pools, or ???!
The great weakness of evoism is having only the present frame of reference to how things now work.
You may yet be correct, however, with just what you have so far on offer, the jury must stay out here.

Were the laws of physics also "very different" before the flood?

We not only have the present as a frame of reference, we have the rocks from the past to tell us how different the earth was in the past. The earth itself tells us about the past. Creationists ignore what the earth tells us, because it conflicts with their interpretation of scripture.

So far we have seen nothing from creationists but speculation about how things might have been different and maybe there was spiritual light (whatever that is) in the past. None of this addreses the questions raised in the OP.

 

[LittleNipper]

God created salt. The Flood simply stirred the pot. In fact it seems to me that the salt content of the Oceans is proof that the Earth is not as old as Uniforitarians say. So you really cannot have it both ways.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

God created salt. The Flood simply stirred the pot. In fact it seems to me that the salt content of the Oceans is proof that the Earth is not as old as Uniforitarians say. So you really cannot have it both ways.

That's because YECs conveniently ignore albitization as Glenn Morton has pointed out.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/salt.htm

BTW you can make a similar argument with aluminum and some other ions to "prove" that the earth is less than 2,000 years old but of course the YECs won't usually tell you that.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html#salt


Stirring the pot with a mythical global could not have produced all the uniform layer of salts and other evaporites that have the same structures and evaporites forming today.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A14

FB

 

[LittleNipper]

That's because YECs conveniently ignore albitization as Glenn Morton has pointed out.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/salt.htm

BTW you can make a similar argument with aluminum and some other ions to "prove" that the earth is less than 2,000 years old but of course the YECs won't usually tell you that.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html#salt


Stirring the pot with a mythical global could not have produced all the uniform layer of salts and other evaporites that have the same structures and evaporites forming today.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A14

FB

Actually, they did say you can prove that the earth is only a few hundred years old if one considers the iron content... But that again only proves that Uniformitarians do not know what they are talking about...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Actually, they did say you can prove that the earth is only a few hundred years old if one considers the iron content... But that again only proves that Uniformitarians do not know what they are talking about...

So they use a method that they admit gives totally false results and you claim it is "uniformitarians" that don't what they are talking about. Amazing!

FB

 

[LittleNipper]

So they use a method that they admit gives totally false results and you claim it is "uniformitarians" that don't what they are talking about. Amazing!

FB

Well, silly, that is exactly why you cannot trust radioactive dating etc... It is amazing the evolutionists simply do not see the writing on the wall...

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Well, silly, that is exactly why you cannot trust radioactive dating etc... It is amazing the evolutionists simply do not see the writing on the wall...

You won't take it personally if I decide to put my trust in those who know something about radiometric dating and not in you, will you?

 

[3Amig(o)s]

In Genesis, when "the fountains of the deep" broke open, all that extremely hot and pressurized water came spewing out and evaporating leaving behind the salts. Then mud covered it up.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In Genesis, when "the fountains of the deep" broke open, all that extremely hot and pressurized water came spewing out and evaporating leaving behind the salts. Then mud covered it up.

So how are there pollen grains distributed through the thick salt layers and why is there no evidence of hydrothermal activity near many of the thickest salt formations?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A14

This "explanation was falsified in the OP.

FB

 

[random_guy]

You can sigh all you want.

In case you don't know it, there is a mechanism for separating the goats from the sheep and you can't be in both camps at the same time. There is knowledge and understanding that comes from God by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said many things that drove people away.

This is not a false dichotomy. Nobody's telling you to choose ignorance.

I love how you say this, but right above, you say that you choose truth over science. Well, ignoring good science (evolution, geology, physics) is choosing ignorance.

What we're talking about is common sense versus "godless" science.

Believers, in fact, make better scientists. At least they used to. Newton was a Christian, I believe.

So wrong here. So explain to me why common sense is better than godless calculus. You are aware that common sense says that .999~ != 1 but calculus says that .999 = 1?

For every good Christian scientist you find, there are many that aren't. Belief has nothing to do with science. What makes science great is it doesn't matter if you're a Hindu, Christian, or Atheist, science is naturalistic in explanation.

 

[grmorton]

I am not going to yet try to refute this stuff, just understand it first. So how is it that if they were flood deposited, some pollen would not get caught in the salt?

Only the pollen caught in the salt but no dirt? Come on. What kind of flood will sort out pollen and salt to the exclusion of almost all sand and shale?

 

[grmorton]

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

I will upload a picture from my web page on the castile formation.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/castile.htm

They show the amazing regularity of the varves over vast distances. This is not something that one would expect if the turbulent world wide flood was going on.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, silly, that is exactly why you cannot trust radioactive dating etc... It is amazing the evolutionists simply do not see the writing on the wall...

What does the concentration of salts in the ocean, which are at equilibrium, have to do with radioisotope dating??

It is amazing that you cannot see who is being "silly"...

 

[grmorton]

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.

And how pray tell would this help a one year global flood? or is this a one year but really a 547 year flood? This is especially tough to explain when you realize that the Castile formation is sandwiched above serveral thousands of feet of sediment and it is covered to the east by sediment which eventually gains a thickness of 75,000 feet further to the east. One must explain the entire column of sediment, not just the 2000 feet or so of the Castile.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, silly, that is exactly why you cannot trust radioactive dating etc... It is amazing the evolutionists simply do not see the writing on the wall...

It is obvious that you know little or nothing about radioactive dating. I don't want to get distracted on this thread but you could start with

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

After you study it you can open another to discuss problem you find with it if you find any from your own analysis.

FB

 

[grmorton]

Since salt is water soluble, I imagine the waters under the earth were salty. Maybe underground rivers carried it like sediment and dropped it here and there leaving thick deposits in places. But that assumes salt existed in some form before it entered into the water. It could be salt was carried to the surface by underground water and then it got into the sea.

The limestone layers would suggest carbonates were also carried to the surface and dropped. The crinoid layers would suggest these creatures lived and died underground. Also gastropods and coral polyps lived there.

I don't think you understand how vast the salt deposits of the earth are. Here is a map showing the extent of the world's salt deposits. The black is the salt, the shaded is the evaporites

 

[grmorton]

The salt in the oceans has been carried off the land by rivers over millions of years. Salt is lost from the oceans through albitization of basalt on the sea floor and overall the system is near equilibrium.

It takes time for salt to deposit from ocean water as the ocean evaporates.Formations like the Silurian Salts in Michigan occur because reefs developed that trapped sea water while evaporated leaving thick salt deposits. The deposits look exactly like those forming today in evaporation basins. It takes at least 20 years to deposit a meter of salt even with unrealistical favorable assumptions about evaporation rates and in some places the salt is hundred of feet thick so attributing the deposits containing the salt to the flood year as most YEC groups do is purely ridiculous.
http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html


Further the salt deposits in Michigan are surrounded by delicate Silurian reefs that could not have grown in or even survived intact in a worldwide flood that was rearranging all the earth's geology as YEC claim that it did.

FB

Not only that, after the reefs grew in place, the reefs were eroded before they were covered by and invaded with salt. Below is a picture of salt found inside an erosional vug in a Michigan reef. The salt came later, after the reef growth.