So what evidence do you have for the existence these unknown, very
different, no longer working processes, that refutes the evidence collected
by professional geologists which demonstrates that known modern processes
can indeed create these structures? Simply saying it must be so because
your world view cannot be wrong is not evidence.
>
>Do you know anyone who could do some larger-than-a-fishtank scale
>experiments on this? Maybe Colorado State University where they did those
>great flume experiments showing that micro-laminations form in seconds,
>before your eyes, during sediment flow.
>
These experiments have already been done, after a fashion, and they
demonstrate that you cannot "precipitate" salt by mixing a hot
supersaturated solution with cold water. They are the kind of experiments
kids do in high school; the kind you can do at home.
>
>>
>>>> Oh, and also please explain mud cracks, scour channels, and ripple
>>>> marks in adjacent shales to some of these deposits (I have photos
from
>>>> a gypsum mine under Grand Rapids if you'd like to see them).
>>>
>>> I would expect scour channels and ripple marks (and other paleocurrent
>>> indicators). Are the mud cracks in the same area? Mud cracks do form
>>> underwater by chemical shrinkage.
>>
>> The mud cracks are in the shale directly overlying the gypsum.
>
>Just what would be expected! Water and other minerals would be pulled from
>the mud into the very concentrated CaSO4 solution adjacent to the
>precipitate!
>
If it's a precipitate there would be no "very concentrated CaSO4 solution
adjacent" to it, because the precipitate would be insoluble.
>
>>
>> Mud cracks far more commonly form in subaerially-exposed mud than
>> underwater
>> by chemical shrinkage. Mudcracks are also often associated with other
>> sedimentary structures indicating exposure.
>>
>
>Of course. That is what we usually see in a mudpuddle.
>
>
>>>> Since you mentioned rapid sedimentation, please explain how long
it
>>>> takes to precipitate, say, 100 feet of halite from flood waters.
>>>
>>> I don't know how rapid. But if it were slow, even mm per hour, I would
>>> expect a lot of impurities in it. The purity we observe would
indicate
>>> to me a much faster rate.
>>
>> I disagree. Nothing I've seen in salt or gypsum mines indicates any
>> exceptional purity or fast rates.
>
>What do you see as sure evidence for slow rates?
>
The sheer thickness of the deposits (knowing that evaporation is a slow
process), the presence of alternating seasonal layers like tree rings, the
presence of different kinds of impurities deposited at different times of
the year forming descreet layers, the lack of significant amounts of
sediment mixed with the salt (which would have occurred if deposition had
been rapid), etc.
>
>>
>>>> How much heat would be released by such a rate?
>>>
>>> Is the amount of heat affected by the rate?
>>
>> If I remember my thermodynamics, the amount of heat released is
>> proportional
>> to the amount of material precipitated but the rate is important because
that
>> heat has to be carried away at some finite rate (water can only
transport heat
>> away so fast before it starts boiling).
>>
>Right. The same as with the batholiths. No special problem if the heat
>production and dissipation is slow, but a challenge if it is fast. Faster
>moving water could carry away more heat than trapped water, but how fast
>could water move without sweeping up the precipitate beneath it? I don't
>know what flow rate, or other process, would balance between heat
>production and dissipation. Opportunity for more aspects to the proposed
>large scale experiments.
>
So where does this heat go once it's in the water? What prevents it from
building up, slowly increasing the temperature of the water until the water
reaches boiling? What prevents the extra heat from vaporizing that water?
What prevents the radiation of this accumulating heat into space from
raising the temperature of the surface of the earth to lethal levels?
Kevin L. O'Brien