Salt in Oceans

By ... uh ... not being the same.A playa forms because rain on the hills washes minerals down into a relatively arid environment which water does not flow out of but rather evaporates out of. (The technical term is "internal drainage".)A saline giant forms because a bit of the sea is so isolated from the main body of the ocean that more water is lost by evaporation then flows in.One requires a desert, the other requires an ocean.

Both are based on evaporating more water than the inflow. Regardless of where the water came from, the process of forming the salt bed is the same.The point being that science does have a mechanism for the formation of salt beds and creationism doesn't.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

True, but they're still not the same thing. A saline giant isn't just a playa writ large. One forms in the sea and the other forms in the desert.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You're looking outside the system for distinctions. The relevant system is a body of salt water. The salt doesn't care where it came from. It deposits by the same process.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

But it's only "the same process" in that evaporation is involved. Apart from that, no. Deserts. Oceans. Two very different things. You can't just point to the formation of playas and say: "Look, that explains the formation of saline giants", 'cos it really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really doesn't.

And that's what's relevant in this context. Evaporation does explain the formation of saline giants. Floods don't.Keep your eyes on the prize.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Which prize?I don't just want to make slevesque less wrong about geology, I'd be equally happy if I could make you less wrong about it too. And it's more likely, what with it not being part of your religion to be wrong.

You won't make anybody "less wrong" by fixating on irrelevant details. Yes, an African elephant and an Indian elephant are different but if either of them steps on you, the crushing process is the same. The ER staff don't need to know which it was.And slevesque doesn't need to know where the salt water came from. He needs to know that it was deposited by evaporation.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Actually, what he needs to know is that we evolutionists are completely right about everything. Then he could admit that creationists are completely wrong about everything, and then he could move on.However, if, rather than taking my word for everything (which obviously he should) he chooses to look into it in slightly more detail, then it is only fair to him to say that saline giants and playas are in fact formed by completely different processes. 'Cos they are.

I asked if there is another process besides evaporation which deposits salt. You seem to be confirming that there is not. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Add subtitle.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

No there is none countries have serched for it for years whit no progress, all desalination plants work on the same principle evaporate the water and leave the salt behind, then cool the water so it is drinkable. It is a very costly process but necesery in some regions of the world.There is some work going on on forward osmosis though it is still on the drawing board.

I just did a quick review of message 1 of this topic and, as expected, found this topic to actually be more of a "Dates and Dating" type topic (we shall see if it gets moved).Discussion of salt deposition should go to Jar's Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds), which currently could use an infusion of quality material.Don't make me get out the [hide] code function - Get over to the proper topic.Adminnemooseus

That is a very interesting statement coming from a YEC. Can you remind as again about how accelerated nuclear decay works?I know it is off topic here, but please remember that you made this statement for other discussions. If this involves evaporation of terrestrial waters this still casts doubt on steady input into the oceans. Either way, you have either a fluctuation input or a fluctuation output which negates the use of salt concentrations as a reliable dating method.

If I might jump in here... True, evaporation is the best mechanism available for the supersaturation of the elements that make up salt beds. I think this is what you are saying. While the conditions under which evaporation might occur vary, the mechanism is pretty much the same.And yes, I can think of some other methods of producing halite from an undersaturated solution. We might use temperature changes, perhaps; or mixing of different solutions. However, I don't see these as producing massive, bedded salt formations that are chemically zoned in the way that evaporitic basins occur.Personally, considering the size of the basin is trivial. In plate tectonics we can imagine, predict and find, restricted basins of almost any size in the geological record. It just so happens that the large basins in the southern US probably occurred along with the start of the opening of the Atlantic Ocean and, like the Afar Region salt deposits were formed, but on a colossal scale.

quote:

---

This, again, Morton mentions in his open letter to Austin and Humphreys:

​

Austin and Humphreys also ignore the existence of bedded salt deposits in the middle of the sedimentary column and its implications for the evaporative removal of salt from the sea. [...] Where in your discussion here do you include the Mediterranean salts, the Zechstein salt of Germany, the Louann Salt of the Gulf of Mexico, the Osprey Salt of Offshore Canada, or the Salina salt of New York? All of these are bedded in the middle of the geologic column and represent huge episodic removals of salt from the oceans by evaporation.
  —Dr. Adequate

---

They ignore it because it is irrelevant. Where does the salt come from to start with? From the rocks themselves. So, the rate of evaporation would match the rate that more salt is being redeposited back into the oceans. They shouldn't be expected to make the obvious a point should they?Secondly, trace fossils need to be verified in these evaporates to confirm them as such. (Plankton,Diatoms,etc.)Thanks.Edited by Jason777, : No reason given.Edited by Jason777, : No reason given.