Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ That data of yours looks very consistent with a global flood. The deeper we first see them in the flood rocks the less likely they are to be alive today.

---

Sorry but weren't they all supposed to be represented by either 2 or 7 of each kind on the ark? All others were killed in the flood. They all came off the ark together so the data are not at all consistent with the ark myth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible.Randy

^ Whoops. I'm only talking marine organisms! The Biblical model allows marine creatures to survive the deluge.You're very much correct! Of course our model would not predict what I said it would for mammals. For mammals our model would simply predict a starting and ending point due to biogeography/sorting/mobility etc. Sorry & thanks. From now on I'll post when I've got more time.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The Biblical model allows marine creatures to survive the deluge.

---

No dice, TB. No model you've proposed allows the survival of anything. Just destruction of habitat on the scale of a flood would kill pretty much all marine animals.Pockets of unmixed salt-water perhaps? And other pockets of fresh-water?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-27-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Whoops. I'm only talking marine organisms! The Biblical model allows marine creatures to survive the deluge.You're very much correct! Of course our model would not predict what I said it would for mammals. For mammals our model would simply predict a starting and ending point due to biogeography/sorting/mobility etc. Sorry & thanks. From now on I'll post when I've got more time. [/QUOTE]JM: Let's not forget the topic of this thread. According to the model you support all life is steamed to death during the flood and the oceans that eventually come back are no deeper than 15 meters.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I just read an article on T-Rex and it stated that juveniles do get mistaken for alternative species especially if separated stratigraphically.

---

I assume that you are refering to Nanotyrannus and "Jane" the new find and whether or not Jane was a Nano or a juvenile. Anyway, regardless of the classification, Jane lived in the late Cretateous just like Sue (the big Tyrannosuarus currently residing in Chicago)did. In other words, no separation w.r.t. time of life there.

quote:

---

If anyone wants to further discuss flood ordering I suggest you start a thread on that elsewhere.

---

I think that is probably a good idea, I was responding to a statement of yours and appear to have taken us further off track, my bad . However, this does bring up an interesting and thread relevant idea. If run-away subduction occured why do we have any marine fossils at all from the "earliest" stages of the flood (or earliest times of evolution)? Wouldn't many or most of them have been "melted" in the interior of the earth? I do not remember seeing anything addressing this in Baurmgardners paper. While I understand that much of the old seabed is not accessible, I know that we do have some marine fossiles (ie Burgess Shale, marine dinos, ect). How come they were laid down and preserved and not turned into molten rock. This question actually is for either side for people with more knowledge of geology than I have, is this a valid question ?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
However, this does bring up an interesting and thread relevant idea. If run-away subduction occured why do we have any marine fossils at all from the "earliest" stages of the flood (or earliest times of evolution)? Wouldn't many or most of them have been "melted" in the interior of the earth? I do not remember seeing anything addressing this in Baurmgardners paper. While I understand that much of the old seabed is not accessible, I know that we do have some marine fossiles (ie Burgess Shale, marine dinos, ect). How come they were laid down and preserved and not turned into molten rock. This question actually is for either side for people with more knowledge of geology than I have, is this a valid question ?

---

I'm sure that there is a way around this for the creationists using a few known facts dressed up in a cloth of vivid imagination. Probably the deeper/earlier sediments were suddenly uplifted before they could be cooked. I mean, hey, there are brachiopods found on Mt. Everest, aren't there? Now, run with that!But you are correct. If the model under discussion were valid there would be a much higher percentage of metamorphic rocks than what we see today. One thing we know is that regions of high heat flow are usually underlain by nascent batholiths. Any sedimentary rocks at depths greater than a few kilometers would be thoroughly cooked. The presence of low temp/hi pressure metamorphic terranes argues against this. But never mind ... these are just details. Hunches seem to carry greater weight with our creationist crowd. Got any?[/B][/QUOTE]

JohnDon't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

​

Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.

---

Is there another theory besides runaway subduction? You've defended it or components of it from time to time. Are you abandoning it now?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.

---

However, some do confuse Baumgardner's model with a viable theory. So, is it still your 'hunch' that these 'musings' are actually better at explaining the earth than mainstream science?