Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?
JonF
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 61 of 160 (219137)
06-23-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2005 7:19 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Deerbreh, it sounds like you are unaware that there exist creationist computer models built by *mainstream* tectonic simulators that demonstrate catastrophic plate tectonics involving 'runaway subduction'.
Yes, provided that ludicrous parameters (e.g. mantle viscosity 109 lower than our best values) are provided as input, the model's predictions that are incompatible with observations (e.g. seafloor spreading) are ignored, and release of enough heat to sterilize the Earth many times over is regarded as a minor issue. See, of course, Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!.
Baumgardner is unarguably a major contributer to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation.
He's made significant contributions in numerical simulations of mantle dynamics. "Major" is arguable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2005 7:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2005 9:20 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 1:40 AM JonF has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 160 (219139)
06-23-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by JonF
06-23-2005 9:08 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Mainstream scientists describe Baumgardner's tectonic simulaitons as:
Yet Hager has only respect for Baumgardner's computer program. Indeed, there is universal agreement that Terra, created to prove the Bible literally true, is one of the most useful and powerful geological tools in existence. "Baumgardner is seen as one of the world leaders in numerical models of mantle convection," says Hager.
From http://globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.html
The unusual viscosity regime occurs precisely becasue it is a runaway effect:
There are good physical reasons for believing that subduction can occur in a catastrophic fashion because of the potential for thermal runaway in silicate rock. This mechanism was first proposed by Gruntfest [6] in 1963 and was considered by several in the geophysics community in the early 1970's [1]. Previous ICC papers [2,3] have discussed the process by which a large cold, relatively more dense, volume of rock in the mantle generates deformational heating in an envelope surrounding it, which in turn reduces the viscosity in the envelope because of the sensitivity of the viscosity to temperature. This decrease in viscosity in turn allows the deformation rate in the envelope to increase, which leads to more intense deformational heating, and finally, because of the positive feedback, results in a sinking rate orders of magnitude higher than would occur otherwise. It was pointed out that thermal diffusion, or conduction of heat out of the zone of high deformation, competes with this tendency toward thermal runaway. It was argued there is a threshold beyond which the deformational heating is strong enough to overwhelm the thermal diffusion, and some effort was made to characterize this threshold.
The important new aspect addressed in this paper is the dependence of the viscosity on the deformation rate itself. Although this deformation rate dependence of viscosity has been observed experimentally in the laboratory for several decades, the difficulty of treating it in numerical models has deterred most investigators from exploring many of its implications. Results reported in the previous ICC papers did not include this highly nonlinear phenomenon. Significant improvements in the numerical techniques that permit large variations in viscosity over small distances in the computational domain, however, now make such calculations practical. The result of including this behavior in the analysis of the thermal runaway mechanism is to discover a much stronger tendency for instability in the earth's mantle. Moreover, deformation rates orders of magnitude higher than before throughout large volumes of the mantle now can be credibly accounted for in terms of this more realistic deformation law. This piece of physics therefore represents a major advance in understanding how a global tectonic catastrophe could transform the face of the earth on a time scale of a few weeks in the manner that Genesis describes Noah's Flood.
Recent papers by several different investigators [10,13,18,19] have also shown that the mineral phase changes which occur as the pressure in the mantle increases with depth also leads to episodic dynamics. The spinel to perovskite plus magnesiowustite transition at about 660 km depth is endothermic and acts as a barrier to flow at this interface between the upper and lower mantle. It therefore tends to trap cold material from the mantle's upper boundary layer as it peels away from the surface and sinks. Numerical studies show that, with this phase transition present, flow in the mantle becomes very episodic in character and punctuated with brief avalanche events that dump the cold material that has accumulated in the upper mantle into the lower mantle. The episodic behavior occurs without the inclusion of the physics that leads to thermal runaway. This paper argues that when temperature and strain rate dependence of the rheology is included, the time scale for these catastrophic episodes is further reduced by orders of magnitude. In this light, the Flood of the Bible with its accompanying tectonic expressions is a phenomenon that is seems to be leaping out of the recent numerical simulations.
From http://globalflood.org/papers/iccsubduction94.html
Note that in the Recolonization Model acelerated decay and associated radio-heating is distributed over 500 years (ie 500 times less severely tha nother youn-earth models).
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-23-2005 09:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by JonF, posted 06-23-2005 9:08 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 12:59 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 160 (219204)
06-24-2005 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2005 9:20 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Tranquility Base, nice to see you again! I have recently been on a significant hiatus as well. Maybe I can find some time to participate in some evcforum discussions, althought I am also a bit hesitant as im afraid I have grown rather rusty from my absense(no real rigorous (relative to my previous level of activity years ago) study in over a year now..).
-Chris
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 01:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2005 9:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2005 1:51 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 160 (219211)
06-24-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by JonF
06-23-2005 9:08 PM


Re: YEC water problem
quote:
Deerbreh, it sounds like you are unaware that there exist creationist computer models built by *mainstream* tectonic simulators that demonstrate catastrophic plate tectonics involving 'runaway subduction'.
Yes, provided that ludicrous parameters (e.g. mantle viscosity 109 lower than our best values) are provided as input...
If memory serves me right, not necessarily. Baumgardner ran 2D and 3D simulations of the runaway process. The 'ludicrous' viscosity parameter was only inserted into the 3D simulations so that runaway would unfold the way it did in the 2D simulations. This was considered acceptable because the purpose of the 3D simulations was just to observe the style of tectonics and changing surface topography and gain insite on general mantle behaviour in 3 dimensions. The 2D simulations, however, did not require scaling of the relevant parameters (including thermal conductivity)--(edit: the high viscosity unfolded in the 2D simulations on itself and is why runaway results in the first place). So which parameters are ludicrous? And are they so because of improper scaling or something else?
edit (incomplete response):
quote:
...the model's predictions that are incompatible with observations (e.g. seafloor spreading) are ignored
How in the world is seafloor spreading incompatible with CPT theory?
quote:
and release of enough heat to sterilize the Earth many times over is regarded as a minor issue. See, of course, Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!.
The large amount of heat released as a direct result of the subducting lithosphere, ie the gravitational potential energy released by the subduction of this lithosphere, which amounts to 10^28 J should NOT result in hazardous surface conditions. Case closed. However, heat release from the new cooling oceanic lithosphere is an issue. Radiogenic heat from accelerated decay of the worlds radioisotopes (especially the major heat producing isotopes of, if i recall correctly--U, Th, and Pb) is a far more damning source of this "excess" heat, but I think it is fair to isolate this problem from that directly pertinent to CPT via runaway subduction.
quote:
Baumgardner is unarguably a major contributer to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation.
He's made significant contributions in numerical simulations of mantle dynamics. "Major" is arguable.
I consider baumgardner a major contributor as well. Indeed even if runaway subduction never occured on earth, it may have significant application to planets like venus. Maybe in 1000 years when exploring extraterrestrial planetary systems it will have further application. The phenomena of runaway and baumgardners extrapolations and research on possible geodynamic behavior during such an event is amazing.
-Chris
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 01:55 AM
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 01:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by JonF, posted 06-23-2005 9:08 PM JonF has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 160 (219214)
06-24-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by TrueCreation
06-24-2005 12:59 AM


Re: YEC water problem
Hi TC. Glad to hear your still around out there . . I look forward to hearing from you. Since I was last around I've more or less become a convert of the Recolonization Model which you're probably aware of . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 12:59 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 160 (219221)
06-24-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
06-22-2005 4:04 PM


Re: A better idea of NA coverage
quote:
The diagram is bunk, and I'll explain why.
I really don't think you supported your claim that it is 'bunk' anywhere in your rant--correct me if I am wrong. In fact, the curve looks EXACTLY like that used in Shubert and Turcotte's heat flow diagram (see Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets [2001], pg. 61)--which is a direct derivative of the eustatic data.
These eustatic changes have been attributed (along with glacial coverage) largely to the rate of seafloor spreading throughout geologic time, hence higher heat flows at around ridges, hence the bathymetry of mid ocean ridges. Other factors in global heat distribution have influenced eustasy as well, such as cretaceous volcanism.
Therefore, I don't know what you are talking about.
-Chris
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 02:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 06-22-2005 4:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 06-24-2005 9:11 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 160 (219223)
06-24-2005 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2005 2:15 AM


quote:
Sure, YECs believe there was some 'fountains of the deep' source but after that the comings and goings (innundations and retreats) are tectonically controlled.
Actually genesis doesn't really say that the fountains of the deep were a 'source of flood water', it just notes that such a phenomena existed concurrently with (or at least at the initiation of) the flood.
During CPT, seafloor is being created at a rapid rate at spreading centers. This newly forming lithosphere is losing heat almost instantaneously as it reaches the surface. You'd better believe there would be 'foundains of the deep' when you have square miles of of molten rock coming in contact with water.
-Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2005 2:15 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2005 2:35 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 160 (219225)
06-24-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by TrueCreation
06-24-2005 2:27 AM


TC, I usually argue that too, but even I admit that the text itself seems to speak of underground water, especailly given the firmament of ch 1. Nevertheless, I agree that the fountains of the deep may indeed be the sea-floor spreading rifts.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 2:27 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 3:02 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 160 (219230)
06-24-2005 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2005 2:35 AM


quote:
TC, I usually argue that too, but even I admit that the text itself seems to speak of underground water, especailly given the firmament of ch 1. Nevertheless, I agree that the fountains of the deep may indeed be the sea-floor spreading rifts.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

In a completely literal sense, it would appear that it is speaking of an underground source of water, however I think that such a dogmatic approach to literal reading is uncalled for and even potentially dangerous (as it leads to using genesis as a conclusive precursory control on the direction of young earth geological research). The phenomena were described in such a fashion so that it could be understood. No one would have any idea what genesis is talking about if it said anything about large amounts of molten rock coming in contact with water and producing 'fountains' of water via shock hydrodynamic reactions.
Furthermore, one reason I would be hesitant to delve into this 'recollonization model' is because this intense (potentially highly effective) method of heat transfer probably will not work with seafloor spreading so slow. So then the question could be raised--does distributing the heat released from the cooling lithosphere since pangea throughout about 500 years provide sufficient time for the heat to be distributed in a fashion where livable conditions can persist on earth? I doubt it.
Also I also see a problem with the rate of accelerated decay just happening to decelerate concurrently with decelerating geodynamic activity:
The rate of radioisotopic decay using uniformitarian time scales is essentially constant. Therefore in the case of accelerated decay (which we require) decay has been essentially constant with the rate of seafloor spreading. The "recolonization model" seems to propose that after pangea formed, tectonics slowed down. Therefore the accelerated decay rate must have slowed down proportionally with tectonics. Therefore, unless there is some direct link between the accelerated decay rate and the rate of tectonic activity, it would appear somewhat ad hoc to me.
I think that the only real benefit to the recolonization model is that it allows us to space things out, therefore 'seemingly'(disregarding the heat transfer criticism I layed out above) getting rid of enormous problems like that with excess heat.
possible--maybe. But likely--IMO very much no.
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2005 2:35 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 10:44 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 160 (219231)
06-24-2005 3:04 AM


I don't want to derail this topic. Maybe my previous post in reply to TB would have been better situated in his recolonization model thread?
edit - {rant} Evidently the recolonization model thread has not been released. I found AdminJar's comment particularly halarious. Kind of reminded me of the debate between Pouchet and Pasteur and The French Academy of Science. But obviously CPT is bunk until not proven bunk... The debate occuring in that thread is what should be occuring subsequent to its approval anyway.. {end rant}
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 03:32 AM

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13014
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 71 of 160 (219254)
06-24-2005 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2005 7:19 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Tranquility Base writes:
Deerbreh, it sounds like you are unaware that there exist creationist computer models built by *mainstream* tectonic simulators that demonstrate catastrophic plate tectonics involving 'runaway subduction'.
There are two problems with this. The first is administrative. I'm becoming increasingly concerned about this thread staying on-topic. There are no hard and fast rules about how on-topic a thread should be, but this one seems to be dropping below a reasonable threshold. Please, I would appreciate it if you and TC wouldn't make it necessary for me to drop into administrative mode again.
The second is my rising concern about the incorrect impressions you're giving of mainstream geologic views. If those at EvC Forum interested in geology have somehow missed recent developments and Baumgardner's views are now finding acceptance in mainstream circles then by all means educate these misanthropes, but you provided links to articles at ICR, and this organization is as far removed from mainstream science as one can get.
So please stay on topic, and please follow rule 8 of the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2005 7:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 7:06 PM Admin has replied
 Message 111 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 11:19 PM Admin has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22479
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 72 of 160 (219277)
06-24-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by TrueCreation
06-24-2005 2:17 AM


Re: A better idea of NA coverage
TrueCreation writes:
I really don't think you supported your claim that it is 'bunk' anywhere in your rant--correct me if I am wrong. In fact, the curve looks EXACTLY like that used in Shubert and Turcotte's heat flow diagram (see Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets [2001], pg. 61)--which is a direct derivative of the eustatic data.
The diagram is bunk because it shows specific heights above current sea level, claiming they were derived from the area of continental flooding. Given uplift and subsidence, it is impossible to make such estimates. The diagrams I provided in Message 52 show that what was actually shown in the original diagrams is the periods when sea levels were rising or falling, not actual sea level heights.
But the topic of this thread is where the water came from and where it went. If you believe that additional water was required during the early Palaeozoic, as TB argues, then please answer the question that is the thread's topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 2:17 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1009 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 73 of 160 (219385)
06-24-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2005 7:19 PM


Re: YEC water problem
I know this is a bit OT, but as Percy pointed out, I think it should be addressed.
Tranquility Base writes:
Deerbreh, it sounds like you are unaware that there exist creationist computer models built by *mainstream* tectonic simulators that demonstrate catastrophic plate tectonics involving 'runaway subduction'.
First of all, Baumgardner is a Creationist working for a mainstream science lab. Just because he did what he was paid to do and then used his product to test some of his own ideas does not equate to mainstream science supporting his theories. Just to make that clear.
Second of all...
Tranquility Base writes:
Baumgardner is unarguably a major contributer to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation.
Searching GeoRef, the most comprehensive geoscience literature database available, I found, for the years between 1985 - 2005, that Baumgardner has been primary author on 14 articles of which all but one were ABSTRACTS.
The lone paper appears to be in a conference proceedings:
Baumgardner, 1988, John R, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The physics of the planets; their origin, evolution, and structure, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, Apr. 9-20, 1985.
Of those remaining 13 abstracts, 11 are in Eos.
During the same period of time, Baumgardner is second author 13 times, although two of them I am not able to verify. Of those 13 references, two were actual papers (one unverified) and the other 11 are abstracts. Again, mostly in Eos.
I leave it up to others to determine whether Baumgardner is a "major contributor to the mainstream field of tectonic simulation."
Personally, I believe that assertion is arguable. A few too many abstracts and not enough research papers, in my opinion.
That's not to say I think Baumgardner's contribution is minor because it's entirely possibly his contribution is one we - those of us not involved in tectonophysics research - can't see.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-24-2005 09:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2005 7:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 11:23 PM roxrkool has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 160 (219419)
06-24-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Admin
06-24-2005 8:25 AM


Re: YEC water problem
quote:
There are two problems with this. The first is administrative. I'm becoming increasingly concerned about this thread staying on-topic. There are no hard and fast rules about how on-topic a thread should be, but this one seems to be dropping below a reasonable threshold. Please, I would appreciate it if you and TC wouldn't make it necessary for me to drop into administrative mode again.
TB and I would agree that baumgardner's simulations of the runaway subduction process and CPT theory in general have DIRECT pertenance to the question of 'where the floodwaters came from and where they went' because the controllers of eustasy are tectonic in nature as has been previously asserted by TB.
quote:
The second is my rising concern about the incorrect impressions you're giving of mainstream geologic views. If those at EvC Forum interested in geology have somehow missed recent developments and Baumgardner's views are now finding acceptance in mainstream circles then by all means educate these misanthropes, but you provided links to articles at ICR, and this organization is as far removed from mainstream science as one can get.
So please stay on topic, and please follow rule 8 of the Forum Guidelines:
8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
A little harsh I think if it is in response to TB's assertion quoted (which according to your beginning your response with, "There are two problems with this..." it is). TB's assertion is hardly a breach of misrepresentation. The assertion is clearly made with the intention to inform Deerbreh that the computer models are relevant. It is a good hearted beneficial tactic to direct attention to something relevant.
However you are right about one thing and that is that we need to be wearing of the topic at hand. The brief exchanges earlier on other related topics could be continued in other threads.
As far as the topic at hand, 'where did the flood waters come from and where did they go', there exist many 'explanations' as randy referred to in his first post such as the 'vapor canopy', Brown's Hydroplate, and CPT via runaway subduction (argued in some favour by myself and TB).
Randy says in post 1,
quote:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics ala Baumgardner cooks the earth death as I show on post 96 of the Geomagnetism and Seafloor Spreading thread and Bill Birkland's post 97 on that thread shows that sedimentation patterns on the ocean floor and not consistent with CPT.
JonF expounds a bit in this regard as well as making other criticisms in post 61. I responded to his post (see post 64), so I think that is where we are.
Is it fair to discuss some of the criticisms of CPT as it has been forwarded as an explanation for where the water came from and went? If so, I would refer attention to post 64. If not, this thread can be considered closed as it has been asserted that the answer is that it is due to tectonics during CPT--the veracity of that answer would then not be a matter to be discussed in this thread.
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 07:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 06-24-2005 8:25 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 06-24-2005 7:23 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 06-24-2005 8:12 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 06-24-2005 8:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 75 of 160 (219420)
06-24-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by TrueCreation
06-24-2005 7:06 PM


CPT and the volume of water.
How does CPT add or subtract water?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 7:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by TrueCreation, posted 06-24-2005 8:16 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024