Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 114 (13770)
07-18-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
07-17-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
UCLA, Los Alomos, funded by NASA, arguably the best mainstream plate tectonics simulation code, commented on in New Scientist!
And he believes that plate tectonics all happened quickly during the flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/212.asp

You mean you haven't seen this before? Just to let you know, Baumgartner agrees that his model requires a 'significant' portion of the ocean to boil away. He has also been known to aver that it doesn't matter what the evidence says: if it disagrees with the bible it has to be wrong. So, you can imagine how well his models relate to reality.
I'm not sure you have taken a step forward here, TB. Later, I'll get you some calculations that show how far off base Baumgartner is. Maybe Moose has some links, or maybe Joe is back...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 11:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 9:06 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 114 (13797)
07-19-2002 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
07-18-2002 9:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I fully support Baumgardners approach. I really do believe that Scripture can guide us on issues of historical geology. But that wont stop me admitting if our approach fails dismally.
I had been planning on finding out who some of these guys really were but hadn't got around to it.
I was pleased to discover Baumgardner's mainstream-ness because I myself am a mainstream sceintist who will probably remain that way too.
Baumgardner is definitely NOT mainstream in the area of geology. He is a fringe personality with an unrealistic model; but obviously, he is so stubborn that facts will not interfer with his fantasy.
quote:
For me having someone like Baumgardner gives me confidence that our POV is in the right ballpark.
Actually, you are way OUT of the ballpark. There is no evidence that the parameters Baumgardner uses have any basis in reality. Even he admits that a significant part of the ocean would boil away. Ark soup, anyone? How can you say that you are in the right ball park? If anything Baumgardner is more fanciful than most creationists.
quote:
It confirms to me that the nay-sayers have as much of an agenda as we do. That's how I think about it.
Then you are easily swayed. And just what do you think this agenda of nay-sayers is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-19-2002 2:55 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 114 (13813)
07-19-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
07-19-2002 2:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Baumgardner is like me - a mainstream scientist during the day and a covert creationist at night! (I am more covert than he is.) We are forced into it. From every indication I can get Baumgardner seems to be a very well respected mainstream scientist. In 1997 he was still working at Los Alomos - I have no idea what he is doing now.
Well, TB, you and your fellow mainstreamer have just managed to eradicate all life on earth. Here is part of an analysis by Randy on another board (I think).
"The runaway subduction model of Baumgardner et al. now seems to be the standard creation science model for the flood. Joe Meert has pointed out several problems with the geophysics of the model on another thread. These geophysical arguments are quite complex and my Ph.D. is in biophysics not geophysics, so I have analyzed the model with another approach based on the simple thermodynamic considerations.
First consider the paper CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY, written by a veritable who’s who of creation science.
http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html
Here is a direct quote:
"Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood or post-Flood times [88], we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational potential energy released by the subduction of this lithosphere is on the order of 10^28 J [6]. This alone probably provided the energy necessary to drive Flood dynamics."
...
What they don’t tell you here is that the 10^28 J they admit to is already more than enough energy to vaporize all the water in all the earth’s oceans and convert the entire atmosphere to high pressure steam. There are about 1.4x10^24 grams of water in the oceans of the world (1.4 Billion Cubic Kilometers according to Britannica). It takes about 420 J to heat a gram of water from 0 to 100 C and another 2260 to boil it at room temperature. Thus it takes about 3.8 x 10^27 J to heat the oceans to boiling and boil them at room temperature. This is less than half of the energy supposedly released. It will actually take a little more energy to completely boil the oceans for two reasons. The atmosphere is hydrostatic so the air pressure will increase thus the boiling temperature will increase, however, as the pressure increases the heat of vaporization goes down so the total heat required is not a great deal more. Second as the oceans boil down they will become saturated salts solutions which will require higher temperature to boil. The final result will still be to convert the atmosphere to high-pressure steam at a temperature above the critical point of water(374 C).
[/quote]
I will try to find more on this subject. However, I believe that Joe has asked you some embarrassing questions regarding the expected depth of the oceans if the Baumgardner model were true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-19-2002 2:55 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:40 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 114 (13815)
07-19-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
07-19-2002 2:55 AM


TB, you may also want to check out this link to TO. It is an article by Isaaks on the flood. Look for the section on runaway subduction.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-19-2002 2:55 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:43 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 114 (13908)
07-21-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 8:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
... Whatever the case Baumgardner is a mainstream geologists of excellent repute.
Actually, he's not a geologist.
quote:
Maybe Baumgardner is preperared to push his model to an extreme becasue he suspects that something extreme generated this effect (eg accelerated decay).
No. The only thing driving Baumgardner on this is his interpretation of the bible.
quote:
I can guarentee that he will not require multiple 'miracles'.
Oh, no, it does. You cannot get the viscosities and heat flows without sterilizing the earth. That would include the ark.
quote:
From my mainstream readings I am aware that nobody can model the detials of plate tectonics very well and that Baumgardner is at the top of the pack of those who play this game.
Wow, I hope you never berate us for making assumptions. This is exactly what he has done and not very realistic ones at that.
quote:
In his spare time he has prodded his work in a creationists direction and I certainly do not expect it to be flawless.
My understanding is that this work is entirely outside his professional efforts. The subduction zones he has modeled look nothing like subduction zones that we can actually see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:54 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by blitz77, posted 08-05-2002 3:13 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 114 (13909)
07-21-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 8:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Those points raised on talk.origins are clearly very antgonistic and seem to have the same over simplification bias. I'm not a geophysicist. Has Baumgardner ever rebutted?
But AIG is okay, eh? Not sure about Baumgardner's rebuttal. But it probably goes something like this, "The bible says so, and that's all I need!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:43 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 21 of 114 (13911)
07-21-2002 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 8:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes runaway subduction is our standard model. We think it is in the ballpark. You can rule it out if you want but that's like ruling out Schrodinger becasue his equaiton didn't account for spin. It is early days, runaway subduction is a hint in the right direction. It's not the be all and end all.
Let's see, have you explained yet how you fit all of that volcanism and tectonism into 2000 years, yet? It would seem to me that this would be a good time to do that. This should be an easy answer if you are in the right ballpark.
quote:
If you weren't so antagonistic instead you would use the boiling away as a constraint on the model and say - oops - maybe not all of the oceran floor was subducted, perhaps it happened over decades etc etc.
It is your model. You need to make the adjustments. Besides, you don't have decades.
quote:
Your approach is very much overly simplistic.
Right, I'm the one that brings up details that you cannot explain, but I'm the one being simplistic.
quote:
We already know the whole shebang wasn't completed until after the tower of Babel. I would not insert plate tectonics into a one year period like you are trying to force us to do. That gives time for the energy to disipate not even mentioning errors in the estimate of the energy.
WEll, then, give us a time frame. The way I see it, you have from the flood to about 2000 years ago, max.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:40 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 114 (14882)
08-05-2002 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by blitz77
08-05-2002 3:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
Actually, he's not a geologist.
quote:
B.S. Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University - 1968
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Princeton University - 1970
M.S. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1981
Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1983
If hes not a geologist, is he a geophysicist then?

Well, I don't see 'Geology' anywhwere in those degrees so there isn't even a question of IF he's a geologist. As to the geophysicist part of the question, I suppose so. However, keep in mind that there are two types of geophysicist: those that understand geology and those that don't. Baumgardner, I assure you, is one of the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by blitz77, posted 08-05-2002 3:13 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 8:48 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 114 (15504)
08-16-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tranquility Base
08-15-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Venus is vaugely suggestive of Baumgardnert's thesis
IT is also completely suggestive of Randy's point. Complete sterilization of a planet. Not exactly a strong point in favor of Baumgardner's model...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-15-2002 9:28 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 114 (15631)
08-18-2002 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tranquility Base
08-18-2002 8:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
How can I possibly disentangle Baumgardner's contributions from that of his co-authors?! And why belittle computational contributions?
Well, for one, the computations are based on a complete lack of understanding and/or disregard for the geological data and geological premises. Baumgardner's motivations are strictly religious and have little to do with rationality.
quote:
I am a theoretical/computational biologist and I will defend my work as genuine science any day anyone wants to take me on!
I have little doubt that your biolotical models are much more accurate and meaningful than Baumgardner's tectonic models.
quote:
Baumgardner is a demonstratably well respected simulator of plate tectonics. Do you really disagree with that?
Thought I cannot speak for Joe, I can tell you my answer to this question, and I doubt that he would dissent much from my opinion: Emphatically, yes, I disagree. Baumgardner's only respect is from creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 8:09 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 11:12 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 114 (15632)
08-18-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tranquility Base
08-18-2002 8:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy et al
I've explained that our confidence in Scripture comes from outside of science. We have hints of how mainstream sceince has got it wrong and how the flood etc may have happened but we are not claiming to have all of the answers.

Does this mean that you are going to sidestep all of our questions regarding the details of your model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 8:17 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 114 (15652)
08-19-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
08-18-2002 11:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think we've got a new war going on here! Computation/theory vs experiment/observation.
Not at all. There are plenty of valid numerical models in science. In fact there isn't a war, except in the minds of creationists. We simply do not recognize the validity of Baumgardner's model. It does not describe reality and ignores the consequences of it's own process. It is hardly worth wasting breath upon it.
As far as science is concerned, this isn't even a skirmish.
quote:
I think they're both important.
As long as the model is constrained by facts, yes, I agree. Baumgardner's model is not.
quote:
The first guy to reliably fold a protein on computer or reconstrcut the known patterns of continental drift will have done all of us a great service by demonstrating that the underlying mechanisms are quantiatively understood.
I wasn't aware that this had not been done. I have seen many reconstructions of plate tectonics. Mostly constrained by data, however.
quote:
Does his plate tectoics engine work well and allow models to be tested? If the answer is yes I think you simply don't like his after hours use of it.
No, it does not describe the actual data that we see in geology, geomechanics or geophysics. It is so far out in left field that it cannot be taken seriously. Yes, it is a complex feat and a very robust modeling program. The problem is that it is based on a myth. GIGO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 11:12 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 4:10 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 62 of 114 (15710)
08-19-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 4:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
From my readings Baumgardner has a very good plate tectonics simulaiton engine. During the day it is used to simulate mainstream plate tectonics and after hours, after tweaking a few paramters, he uses the same engineto test runaway subduciton.
Sure the engine is fine, the problems come about when tweaking becomes whacking. Face it, Baumgardner is not a geologist. Nor is he 'mainstream' on this issue. Nor does he bother to constrain his model with actual data. He forces the model to fit the myth rather than the data.
quote:
I quoted a plate tectonics guy several months ago saying that deterministic simulations of plate tectonics 'reproduce nothing like' the continental history we have.
Not sure what your point is here. If you are talking about modeling, I would agree. I probably misunderstood what you said earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 4:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 114 (15736)
08-20-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 10:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not saying that runaway subduction must be the answer - it is a possibility and it works very nicely with accelrated decay - if only we didn't kill everything!
Aren't you neglecting one little detail here ... like, perhaps, evidence that either accelerated decay or runaway subduction ever happened? What Randy has given you is evidence that they never happened. Why do you ignore it?
quote:
Further work is clearly needed if this were to become more than just a toy model.
I'm not sure why anyone would conduct this work. If there were evidence that it had happened it might be a more fruitful endeavor.
quote:
I see it simply as a hint in the right direction.
There is NOTHING indicating that this is the right direction. Perhaps that is why research is so lacking, don't you think?
quote:
Nevertheless the concept of runaway subduction could be completely correct.
Not sure how you can simply ignore the facts here, TB. There is nothing to support this statement.
If runaway subduction occured there would be no life on earth. THere is, apparently, life on earth. Therefore runaway subduction didn't happen. It is simple logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 10:03 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 70 of 114 (15738)
08-20-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 12:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I fully agree with you that the heat is a huge constraint. But there just aren't enough people working on this to rule it out yet.
That is precisely because it is such a huge constraint. Most rational people understand this and realize that the work to prove runaway subduction would be completely fruitless.
quote:
If the entire process of continental drift is carried over decades rather than a year it might all work. With Noah disembarking at a high elevation then the tectonic aftermath of the flood could have gone on for decades afterward (and decades before).
Are you saying that Genesis cannot be translated literally? Or that Baumgardner is wrong? But no, the amount of heat release, as Randy has shown, cannot disipate that fast. You still poach the human race.
quote:
If one spreads the energy to boil the ocean over a longer period it will not boil the ocean!
Quite an assertion. Remember, we are talking several orders of magnitude greater energy than necessary to eradicate all life on earth. Are you just going to turn on and off such a huge heat engine like a water tap? What is the mechanism for this? Do you have some numbers to support this position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 12:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 8:57 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024