You and I know that, but the vast majority of creationists seem to believe
otherwise. Walter Brown is a typical example. (Apparently, Karen believes
this as well.) The only notable exceptions I know of are Baumgartner and
his colleagues at the ICR (and now yourself as well). Undoubtably there are
others, but they constitute a distinct minority. One thing I will say,
however, is that those who reject the deposition-from-solution model are
themselves good geologists and so were able to catch the obvious flaws. Now
if they would only publish an Impact article explaining those flaws for
their followers.
>
>Most of the carbonates I have
>studied are transported assemblages. For example, the Devonian DeNay
>Limestone in northcentral Nevada, 600 meters of a typical lime mudstone is
>all transported in from outside the basin as turbidites. No temperature
>change there. Lots more like that.
>
>>First of all, the deposits are not pure: they contain plankton, pollen
and
>>volcanic dust, among other impurities, exactly what you would expect if
the
>>deposits had been formed by evaporation.
>
>Most halites I have studied (I have processed hundreds of samples) are
>pretty much sterile. There are some halites, such as the famous Cambrian
>salts of Punjab province in India that are loaded with palynomorphs and
>insect fragments of putative "Eocene age". Now there is a salt that has
>pollen and junk in it. But how do you explain it in Cambrian salt?
>
There were volcanoes and deserts (a major source of dust), as well as soils,
in the Cambrian as well. Could you please provide citations that describe
these sterile halites? The references I have claim that halites universally
contain impurities. Thanks.
Kevin L. O'Brien