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

I looked at Dr. Baumgardners paper in the ICR a while ago and I remember one very striking thing about it. His example for the feasability of run-away techtonics resurfacing the face the earth was Venus, "The Global Resurfacing of Venus" Journal of Geophysical Research(1994) 99:10899-10926. As we have not ended up as that planet did, and as the outgassing which was the result of the rapid plate motion on that planet did not occur here within the last couple of millenia (as has been discussed an nauseum on this board) I do not even see why we are re-hashing this.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Venus is vaugely suggestive of Baumgardnert's thesis - I doubt it was his killer point or his only point!

---

I think that you miss my point, here is the complete phrase from Dr. Baumgardners paper.
" A notible outcome of the recent high resolution mapping of the surface of Venus by the Magellan spcaevraft is the conclusion that there was a tectonic catastrophe on Venus that completely resurfaced the planet in a brief span of time. This event in terms of radiometric time, accounting for the uncertianties in the cratering rate estimates, coincides almost precisely with the flood event on earth. A mechanism internal to Venus was almost certianly the cause of the catastrophe. It is reasonable to suspect that simultaneous catastrophes on both the earth and Venus were due to the same phenominon of runaway avalanche in their silicate mantles."He is using Venus as 1) an example to demonstrate that run-away subduction is possible and 2) an example of what, topographically, run-away subduction would likely look like, ie resurfacing of the earth. The problem is he is conveniently ignoring the end results (Venus is a true hell hole) and likely consequences to the earth if his model with the accelerated rates had ever occured on the earth. The heat has been discussed already, how about off gassing. Here is a little blurb that describes the effects and reactions far better than I can."Atmospheric gasses are thought to be the result of outgassing. Venus and the earth both have active volcanoes that pump CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 is removed in the earth's case by absorption in the ocean followed by reactions that turn it into beach sand and limestone. But the absorption and outgassing are temperature dependent in a complicated nonlinear fashion (words we use when we don't really know what's going on) so if the temperature increases the outgassing increases (H2O evaporates and is a greenhouse gas) and the ocean absorption decreases, the blanketing further raises the temperature and A very bad thing happens if the situation gets to the point that the planet's water trap (the altitude at which water freezes and cannot easily go higher) rises to an altitude where the sun's ultraviolet radiation can dissociate the H2O into H2 and O. The H2 will be lost in space and the O2 will eventually combine in the surface rocks so the water is destroyed forever. This process is not reversible so the planet is doomed. Just like Venus." http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/.../ross/ph226/planet/venus.htmNow, as we do not see the after effects of run-away subduction here on earth (the only high level of sulfuric acid near me is in a bottle in my lab, or in the battery of my car) I have to consider the possibility that it occured here on earth to be highly unlikely. This is one of the main reasons that I consider Dr. Baumgardners model to be misapplied in this instance, the available data just does not bear him out.By the way, one way around this problem would be a limited sub-duction or a subduction that stopped short. I see no real mention of this in Dr, Baumgardners paper. I find two other points in his paper of great interest, one is that he mentions the radiation of heat from the steam into space as a menas of removing heat without metioning the concurrent incerase in temperature which would occur from such a thick water vapor layer in the atmosphere, and two
"That no air-breathing life could survive such a catastrophe and that most marine life also pershed is readily believable."
OK, he is tacitly admitting here that his model is a sterilization model. Now where is his scientific evidence that ANYONE or ANYTHING could have survived. It appears to me that his model in this paper is geared towards demonstrating that God must have did it (saving Noah and the animals) soley on the insistance that, sans data, the flood occured in a manner as his model says so God MUST be around. A rather circular arguement.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 08-16-2002]

Actually the value k = 2 X 10^10 W m^-1K^-1 is used on page 6 as the value required under the model for it to work. I think that you need to re-read the article, it is in the section titled "Treatment of the Runaway Instability".------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy:
Calculation on heat radiation from an earth sized planet indicate that to shed 10^28 J of heat (probably less than the total released) in 100 years requires an average surface temperature over the whole time of about 300 C and even then you must ignore the effect of all the greenhouse gases that would have been pumped into the atmosphere. Randy [/B][/QUOTE]Please do not forget the acidization due to sulfates blowing through the seawater at high temperatures(I believe that I posted a link to this earlier). Likely it would have made the acid rain in the US and Canadian Northwest look very mild in comparison .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The earlier something succumed to the flood the less likely it is to have survived to the top. Of course this is a hiuge approximation becasue it is convoluted with biogeography and hydrodynamic sorting but nevertheless it is consistent with the flood. The coming and going distribution of any species in the fossil record could either be the flood or geolgoical time.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-26-2002]

---

TB, Neither biogeographics nor sorting bear out your assertions. You have also claimed that those species most capable of fleeing (I am assuming to higher ground) were killed last. How do you explain the correspondence of juveniles with adults. I could see a larger number of mothers with juveniles (although not anything approaching what we actually see) but males generally do not stick around anywhere near as much as the mothers. There is no real crossing in statographic boundries of adult and juvenile.Come on TB, if you want to cite divine intervention fine. But between the heat, acid and stratography there is very little in the scientific realm which supports your assertions on this thread.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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