But that's one of the phenomena I hope you will explain, why salt is so frequently found in the vicinity of oil deposits.
I thought it was because salt was impermeable to oil, so oil can become trapped by salt deposits. Reading the Wikipedia article on salt domes I see that this is true, but it's more interesting and complicated than I thought. Apparently salt deposits have a tendency to rise toward the surface, pushing any overlying oil deposits up with them and trapping them between the salt and the overlying rock. Sounds like a rising salt layer collects oil that might be distributed across a great range of depths into a much smaller area, in essence concentrating it.
That's mostly about how they behave together, but doesn't explain why they so frequently occur together in the first place.
The salt and the oil were not originally together. The salt was in layers somewhere below the oil. It rose through the strata, encountered the oil, then carried it up with it because the salt layer is impermeable to the oil.
Oil deposits that are trapped with salt domes are relatively easy to extract, but I'm going to speculate that that oil might once have been widely distributed and relatively sparse, the kind of oil deposits we might need to employ fracking to access today. Maybe one of the oil industry people can confirm this.
The first oil (and gas) drilled in the US was associated with salt wells, see the Wikipedia article on the the history of the US oil industry. Presumably the salt and the oil were not originally together, but rather came into close association as the salt rose toward the surface and passed through oil-containing layers.
A significant proportion of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves are found in structures related to salt tectonics, including many in the Middle East, the South Atlantic passive margins (Brazil, Gabon and Angola) and the Gulf of Mexico.
If there was a worldwide Flood 4300 years ago, then the evaporites would have had to have formed afterward. It's perfectly logical.
Since evaporites are found at all levels of the geologic column, and since an evaporite must be exposed to the atmosphere before it can, uh, evaporate, your perfect logic requires that the entire geologic column be post flood.
But your saying that of course evaporites must have been exposed to air because they did evaporate does make one wonder if that's necessarily how it always happens.
Why, Faith? What is it that makes you wonder? Is it the pristine shores of the Dead Sea that makes you think there must be another explanation for salt deposits:
Or maybe it's the absense of salt deposits at the Great Salt Lake that leads to speculations about other ways that evaporites form:
Or maybe it's the beautiful salt-free lake at the Bonneville Salt Flats:
Or maybe it's the minuscule dimensions of underground salt mines:
You're not discussing or debating. You're just making expressions of faith, in essence saying, "I believe that one day evidence supporting my position will be found. I have no such evidence now, but I shall argue interminably anyway by simply stating this over and over and over again in a variety of ways."
You never hear anyone else making equivalently empty arguments out of thin air, like, "Hearing that Jesus overturned the tables of the moneylenders at the temple makes one wonder if the temple wasn't necessarily in Jerusalem but in Mecca." If you don't have anything that makes sense and is supported by evidence could you just not say anything? Oh, and before you say it, stating that "I do too make sense and have evidence" is just an unsupported opinion shared by no one else.
There is no other explanation that YOU can think of, RAZD, but never underestimate the creativity and critical thinking of a creationist.
Have you forgotten that you think other creationists are wrong? And you're once again making the specious argument, "I have no evidence or rationale now, but just you wait!"
Please, enough. Yes, if you're right and we're wrong then you need to respond with evidence and explanations demonstrating that this is so, but you have to have them before you respond, not after. In debate there's no such thing as promising that someday you'll have them.
Really. Wikipedia told you that one way lakes increase in salinity is when water seeps out of the lake into the ground. This is from the Wikipedia article on salt lakes:
Salt lakes form when the water flowing into the lake, containing salt or minerals, cannot leave because the lake is endorheic (terminal). The water then evaporates, leaving behind any dissolved salts and thus increasing its salinity, making a salt lake an excellent place for salt production. High salinity will also lead to a unique flora and fauna in the lake in question; sometimes, in fact, the result may be an absence or near absence of life near the salt lake.
If the amount of water flowing into a lake is less than the amount evaporated, the lake will eventually disappear and leave a dry lake (also called playa or salt flat).
Obviously it wasn't *that* Wikipedia article that misinformed you, so which one was it?
What RAZD was trying to explain to you was that salt in solution will seep out of a lake with the water. The ground is not some superfilter capable of removing Na and Cl ions from solution.
Let me repeat. If evaporites formed after the flood then all geological layers must have formed after the flood because evaporites are found in all levels of the geologic column. There is no way of separating underground water from its dissolved components while constructing an immensely thick salt layer in the midst of sedimentary layers, and certainly not one that also somehow gathers all the other normal constituents of a body of water on the surface.
Conduct your own experiment. Dissolve a few teaspoons of salt in a glass or water. Now, separate the water from the salt without using evaporation. You can use whatever materials you want, like paper towels, coffee filters, dirt, rocks, gravel, wood, flower petals, etc. Good luck.
When you're done with your experiments you might want to look up desalination and read how difficult the problem really is. Were separating salt from water a simple matter of passing it through a layer of dirt then the world's water problems would be solved and there would be no need for the desalination plants dotting the coastlines in and near Saudi Arabia. Now that you understand the problem, perhaps you can describe for us the large scale reverse osmosis processes that took place naturally underground and produced all that salt.
This salt thing is as boneheaded an idea as the one you had about deeply buried layers rotating, whose major significant problems you still don't seem to understand, especially the exceedingly simple geometric problem, which I present here. Here is a sequence of geologic layers:
And here are the bottom four layers rotated sort of like the supergroup at the Grand Canyon:
But those layers stretched for miles in all directions. Where did all the missing material go. Here's a diagram showing the rotated missing material:
Do you see now that the rotated material should have extended for miles up into the sky and miles down into the interior of the Earth? Where did it all go, Faith? This isn't just a little missing material - it's thousands of cubic miles of missing material.
I haven't even thought about the salt problem and here you are answering thoughts I haven't even had.
You're still just making things up, now about what you wrote just a few posts ago. I replied to what you said about the salt problem, here it is again from Message 31:
Faith in Message 31 writes:
But your saying that of course evaporites must have been exposed to air because they did evaporate does make one wonder if that's necessarily how it always happens. Even exposed salt lakes aren't produced only by evaporation but partly by seepage into the ground. And water would be expected to seep down through the strata too. That's what leads to cementation of the rock as it carries the chemicals that bring that about. So for starters I'd question the need for exposure to air.
You're just flat out lying in accusing me of replying to thoughts you haven't even had. I replied to precisely what you said. Have some decency, will you, own up to what you say, and stop making false accusations. The arguments are *your* arguments, not things other people are making up.
You also said in Message 41 that you got the idea that increased salinity can be caused by seepage from Wikipedia:
Faith in Message 41 writes:
Well, I got the seepage idea from Wikipedia.
But that's not true, either, is it. You just made that up, and then you took a gratuitous and completely fallacious shot at respectable websites that go to great efforts to get things right:
Faith continuing in Message 41 writes:
Guess I'll have to stop relying on noncreationist sites.
You're behavior is despicable. Wikipedia made no such mistake as you accuse it of, but will you own up to this false accusation? Of course not, because you're just a typical fundamentalist Christian willing to sacrifice all honesty and integrity in the name of some misguided faith in a book written by prescientific nomads. Why don't you come clean, you'll feel so much better.
On the same subject you also said this:
I found an article that said seepage PLUS evaporation was involved in the formation of salt lakes.
The lying just doesn't end with you, does it. Produce the article. That's all you have to do, just produce the article. Having trouble finding it? Just go to your browser's history and scan down the list of webpages until you find it.
And if the article doesn't really exist, just admit it. And then don't pull stunts like this anymore. Your words are right there in your old posts, it's not like you can hide what you say, unless you start deleting things you wish you hadn't said.
The rotated strata were broken off, Percy, not rotated up into the sky.
Again, Faith, please stop making stuff up. There is no evidence of rotation while buried, there is no evidence of these layers lying flat with broken ends elsewhere in the area. Were you to find such evidence you could offer it in support of your made up position, but no such evidence has ever been found. You're again arguing, "Someday evidence will be found proving me right." In the meantime you have no evidence supporting your position, no rationale either, and all the evidence is against. Of that which one does not know, one must remain silent. Learn this lesson, cherish it, love it.
Just replying to the chain of messages, yours is the last.
I didn't call Faith a liar for being wrong about any scientific issue. Anyone can be wrong. Anyone here who's honest will admit they've been wrong plenty of times.
No, I called Faith a liar for misrepresenting me as setting up a strawman to make it appear as if she had said things she hadn't, and for misrepresenting Wikipedia as having gotten something wrong it hadn't. I'm not going to blame Faith for getting things wrong because, like I said, we all get things wrong. I blame her for getting things wrong and then casting the blame for it at everyone except herself.
Totally understandable. But at some point, you have to lift your foot off of a person's neck after they are down. Of course, I am not the one Faith called a liar. You are. So it was your call, not mine.
I just endured an entire thread of, "I never said any such thing, I'm a victim of your misrepresentation," over at Why the Flood Never Happened. That's enough of that for a while.
Edit: The salt could have formed by underground heat evaporating the moisture which escaped in near microscopic vents (which are quite common). That's my unresearched response just off the top of my head.