Around the web 11/18/2013 — More on salt magmas, more atheists convert to Christ, and more…

CARBONATE ≠ CARBONATITE! — Back in March, I wrote a critique of a young-Earth creationist proposal that evaporite deposits, such as thick layers of halite (rock salt), were actually formed during Noah’s flood by crystallization from gigantic eruptions of salt lavas. I would have ignored this proposal completely if it had come from the fringe of the YEC movement, but it was published in one of their leading “peer-reviewed” journals, and endorsed by one of the leading YEC geologists. The author, Stef Heerema, has written a response to my critique on the website: Clarifying the magmatic model for the origin of salt deposits. I don’t think Mr. Heerema scored a single point. A response to the response will be coming soon.

ANOTHER BRIGHT ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC COMES TO FAITH IN CHRIST — From Christianity Today: Fox News’ Highly Reluctant Jesus Follower. This is the story of Kirsten Powers.

If there was one thing in which I was completely secure, it was that I would never adhere to any religion—especially to evangelical Christianity, which I held in particular contempt.

ANOTHER ATHEIST TELLS HIS STORY — From atheism to Christianity: a personal journey, by Philip Vander Elst.

And once again closer scrutiny of the facts forced me to abandon my old prejudices against Christianity.

HT: Jay Wile

GOOD CREATION BOOKS — Naturalis Historia has a good list of books on the biblical doctrine of creation: Modern creation debate books.

IS IT TIME FOR EVANGELICALS TO RETHINK BIRTH CONTROL? – I hold abortion to be a great evil. But like most Protestants, I have been more ambivalent about non-abortive birth control. But I’m not so sure about that anymore. Here’s a Roman Catholic perspective on birth control: Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control.

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That’s it. But it’s pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it’s probably never been as salient as today.

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

  1.  General lowering of moral standards
  2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
  3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
  4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

Grace and Peace


8 thoughts on “Around the web 11/18/2013 — More on salt magmas, more atheists convert to Christ, and more…

  1. Mike Riter

    Thanks again for another awesome post!!! You’re a world of important information. I’m so glad to find out where to get creation debate books. I’m working on showing all the Biblical reasons “The beginning” in Genesis 1:1 cannot refer to the very beginning referred to in John 1:1. I will be sending you this report when I finish. In Christ, Mike Riter


  2. WebMonk

    Wow, I don’t think I would have imagined an entire “rebuttal” that is made up of

    “Kevin said…” followed by variations on the theme of “Nuh uh”.

    Here are a couple of my “favorites”.

    2) You corrected his error and he says “See, it’s even more unlikely.” Does he realize that the difference between 67K and 60K years in geological scales is like saying a person is 1.972667 meters tall instead of 1.972660 meters tall? Talk about missing the point!

    3) “but nowhere on earth is there such an analogy [of coral reef blocks].” Um, has he tried Google? I’m not a geologist and I was able to find examples of just such analogies in the first page of results.

    4) Summarized: “where are the fossils trapped in the evaporating bodies of water?” Um, they exist (again, Google is awesome) and they’re rare, just like the standard theory suggests. And yes, the reef would die, but a dead reef blocks the water just as well as a live one. So the problem is … what?

    6) Summarized: “solid salt can’t REALLY flow on the surface”. Does this idiot not know how to use Google? Again, it took me thirty seconds.

    10) Summarized: “I don’t know if Kevin’s right or not but even if he’s right it doesn’t matter.” And doesn’t bother to continue WHY it doesn’t matter. Just a statement that it doesn’t.

    12) Summarized – “Kevin is right that there’s no proof in support of my idea in this area, but that’s just because they haven’t found any yet. They might still find some!! Really!”

    17) He didn’t even TOUCH on all the basic errors Kevin pointed out. He just responded with a long-winded, “No, peer review didn’t fail,” without ever addressing all the failures that were pointed out.

    20) Summarized – “No, that’s just because teh ebil old timers are wrong.” No discussion about what shows they might be wrong and why his statement (made without ANY attempt at supporting evidence – merely a statement) is right.

    This guy doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about when it comes to geology. Which isn’t surprising since he got a B.S. in AIRCRAFT Engineering. The only thing he knows about geology is this (from the AIG site: “He was involved in the installation of a salt bath for heat treatment as well as being a sales representative for steam installations.”

    That’s treating industrial metals with a salt bath. That is the ONLY thing he knows about salt formations.


  3. Pingback: Vorming van zoutlagen - Gevormd uit Sterrenstof

  4. geochristian

    Roger — I meant to write a lengthy response to Stef Heerema’s rebuttal, but got busy with other things. I don’t think Stef said anything new in his rebuttal, and he repeated many of his same errors.

    Here are a few thoughts about Heerema’s rebuttal. Are there specific things you would like me to address? Do you think Heerema has some arguments that I cannot refute?

    6. Laboratory evidence for solid-state flow of halite is abundant. Take a block of halite and put it under pressure, and it will deform. This deformation is also visible in the walls of underground salt mines, where the evaporite layers are often highly distorted, and in the salt glaciers of the Zagros Mountains of Iran. Salt flows in the solid state.

    7. Carbonatite is not a salt, it is a rock that has an igneous origin. The minerals that are common in carbonatites are primarily igneous minerals, such as pyroxenes, augite, diopside, olivine, amphiboles, magnetite, hematite, and apatite. These minerals are never found in evaporite deposits. Herrema cannot use the emplacement of carbonatites as a model for formation of halite and gypsum layers in what are clearly sedimentary basins.

    9. Again, Heerema repeats his misunderstanding of “carbonatite.” Carbonatite is not a salt. There is no logical connection between the formation of carbonatites and the formation of evaporites.

    14. Heerema confuses salt diapirs with feeder dikes. I’m wanting him to show feeder dikes beneath the salt layers, not feeder dikes that lead from deep salt layers up into salt domes. Herrema has no evidence for where his hypothetical salt magma came from.

    The 21st minute of the video, which purports to show the formation of diapirs, is the perhaps the most unbelievable part of his entire model. Did these salt diapirs form in water, and then somehow freeze in place (in water!) so that sediments could accumulate around the pillars? I don’t think so.

    17. My criticism of the “peer review” of the original CMI article were not so much about the bad science of Heerema’s hypothesis, but the misuse and misunderstanding of basic geological vocabulary. This should have been addressed at the peer review and editing stage.


  5. geochristian

    Or my rebuttal to Heerema’s rebuttal could go like this:

    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.
    Carbonatite is not a salt.


  6. Pingback: Het Vulkanisch Zoutmodel (VZM) van ing. Stef Heerema - Een overzicht - Fundamentum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s