Evaporites could form without evaporation (Talk.Origins)

Claim CD301:

Evaporites can precipitate from unsaturated brines; they can form without evaporation (H. M. Morris 1974). A mechanism is sketched by J. D. Morris (2002):
 * Many now think the salt was extruded in superheated, supersaturated salt brines from deep in the earth along faults. Once encountering the cold ocean waters, the hot brines could no longer sustain the high concentrations of salt, which rapidly precipitated out of solution, free of impurities and marine organisms.

Source:
 * Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 105-106.
 * Morris, John D., 2002. Does salt come from evaporated sea water? Acts & Facts 31(11) (Nov.).

CreationWiki response:

It should be noted that this is not the only proposed creationist model for rapid formation of "evaporites". Dr. Gish sums up one model:

It has been suggested that the mixing of different kinds of brines, say of sodium chloride and magnesium chloride, each originally saturated, might cause precipitation of one or both of the salts. Omer B. Raup has conducted some experiments that have shown that much salt is precipitated when brines are mixed. The precipitation took place without any evaporation of water or change of temperature.

This only shows that the salt was deposited some distance from the hydrothermal activity. A supersaturated salt brine would have been a liquid and thus easily pushed by the current before precipitating out. In one case the salt brine may have traveled 50 miles from a hydrothermal deposit of zinc and lead that uniformitarian geologists would consider too old to be associated with the salt deposits.

Also, the model supported by Omer B. Raup's experiments does not require massive amounts of heat. See beginning of article.

The hydrothermal activity that produced the salt deposits would be on continental crust and not oceanic crust. Also, given the size of some of these salt deposits, it is likely that the Flood drained off most of the salt available for hydrothermal solutions. Only a uniformitarian mind set would insist that current hydrothermal activity would be the same as the Flood's hydrothermal activity.

Precipitation would not necessarily produce significant outflow either, so what's the point?

Desiccation cracks would form subsurface as the deposits dried out after the flood. So called raindrop impressions are really air bubble impressions and are actually evidence of rapid deposition. The claim of footprints is unsubstantiated. There seems to be no evidence of footprints in ancient "evaporites" outside Talk.Origins' declaration that they exist. The lack of examples makes a proper analysis impossible, but there are possibilities. If the salt is currently on or near the surface, the prints could be post-Flood. Otherwise they would only indicate that the deposit was above water or near the surface at some time during the Flood.

Talk.Origins is clearly ignoring the results of water evaporation as the deposits dried out after the Flood.

Also, using data from the Mediterranean Sea, Hardie and Lowenstein showed that the chicken-wire pattern and sabkha environments can be created (and should be interpreted as) in deep water environments.

Hardie LA, Lowenstein TK. 2004.Did the Mediterranean sea dry out during the Miocene? A reassessment of the evaporite evidence from DSDP Legs 13 and 42A cores. Journal of Sedimentary Research 74:453-461.