Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 3:31 PM
27 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile (9 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,729 Year: 9,765/19,786 Month: 2,187/2,119 Week: 223/724 Day: 62/93 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 31 of 114 (15025)
08-08-2002 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
08-07-2002 10:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Yes Baumgardner hasn't played the academic game as you and I are, true. But there is a lot of good long-term work that goes on at these institutes where the publicaiton records are frequently not what we would call stunning. A lot of these places do on-going development and operational work to the detriment of their publication records. Becasue they are not caught up in the game they do not necesarily send of a manuscript everytime they put 2 and 2 together like we do.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-07-2002]


JM: I did not trot him out as 'one of the top'. He is a good code writer. Most of the ideas for publications are not his, he is co-author. I think his idea actually is one paper and the book. If you are going to trot someone out as 'top mainstream', it's best to back it up.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-07-2002 10:26 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-15-2002 9:32 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4419 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 32 of 114 (15481)
08-15-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 8:43 PM


Since Edge has posted part of my runaway subduction heat analysis on this thread I thought I would chime in here.

Tranquility Base Wrote

quote:
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.

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. Your approach is very much overly simplistic. 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.


The model rules itself out. Since the energy is far more than that required to cook the earth to death many times over errors are not that significant. Since boiling only a tiny fraction of the oceans will kill off air breathing life the model is so contrained as to be completely unrealistic. Since the model releases at least 2500 times as much energy as the earth gets from the sun each year spreading it over a few decades won't help and the process has to happen quickly to get the flood over and done in a year anyway.

quote:
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?

Baumgardner has no refutation of the heat problem with the runaway subduction model. In fact the model releases more than enough heat to boil the oceans away several times over. I have listened to a lecture by Kurt Wise who is also and author of the model. I get it here

http://216.176.228.162:9037/ramgen/991102wise.rm

This is a close to a transcription as I could make of a part near the end.

Transcription from Wise: "One of our bigest challenges right now is explaining where in the world all the heat went. There is an enormous amount of heat released in this process, and enough heat to in fact boil the oceans away several times over so the question is how did the heat get out with out doing that."

Wise also says that the entire ocean floor was replaced by molten mantle material that was so hot that it was enough thicker than the original floor to raise the sea level by a kilometer increasing the height of the flood. Presumably this material had to release its heat for the food to go back down.

Further Baumgardner admits that a significant fraction of the ocean would boil. You can’t boil even a tiny fraction of the water in the ocean without transferring enough heat to the air to cook the earth to death. In fact it is easy to calculate that the condensation of of much less than 1 percent of the water in the ocean from steam will release enough latent heat of vaporization to heat the atmosphere by 100 C.

Baumgardner’s web page on Runaway Subduction
http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm

contains something that is so illogical that I don’t see how anyone could take him seriously when he writes about this stuff.

“It plausibly leads to intense global rain as hot magma erupted in zones of plate divergence, in direct contact with ocean water, creates bubbles of high pressure steam that emerge from the ocean, rise rapidly through the atmosphere, radiate their heat to space, and precipitate their water as rain.”

Anyone with a basic knowledge of science should see that is not at all plausible and has serious problems. The first is that high pressure steam is heavier than air so it won't rise until it expands a lot, the second is that steam pressure tends to equalize at about the speed of sound so the steam will spread rapidly in all directions before beginning to rise and the third is that the steam will radiate its heat in all directions not just up into space, the forth is that whatever steam condenses in the atmosphere will release its latent heat of vaporization increasing air tempertaures beyond the point that life could survive.

Models need evidence. Evidence for the Runaway Subduction flood model would be no life on earth.

Randy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-15-2002 2:02 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 33 of 114 (15489)
08-15-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Randy
08-15-2002 10:13 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Randy, posted 08-15-2002 10:13 AM Randy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-15-2002 9:28 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 114 (15499)
08-15-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
08-15-2002 2:02 PM


^ Venus is vaugely suggestive of Baumgardnert's thesis - I doubt it was his killer point or his only point!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-15-2002 2:02 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 08-16-2002 1:30 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-16-2002 10:05 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 114 (15501)
08-15-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Joe Meert
08-08-2002 7:50 AM


Well, my thread title has theword 'simulator' in it Joe. He is responsible for one of the world's best tectonic simulation engines.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Joe Meert, posted 08-08-2002 7:50 AM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-15-2002 10:05 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Joe Meert, posted 08-16-2002 6:50 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3725
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 36 of 114 (15502)
08-15-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
08-15-2002 9:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Well, my thread title has theword 'simulator' in it Joe. He is responsible for one of the world's best tectonic simulation engines.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-15-2002]


Or at least the most prominent.

Do you have an alternative 'simulator' to present to this discussion?

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-15-2002 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4607
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


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 yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 38 of 114 (15514)
08-16-2002 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
08-15-2002 9:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Well, my thread title has theword 'simulator' in it Joe. He is responsible for one of the world's best tectonic simulation engines.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-15-2002]


JM: You're now changing the meaning of your title. Creating a program is the first step in mantle dynamic simulation. Your title implied he actually does something with it. The literature says no, he relies on co-authors for the few pubs he has. There are a number of great packages out there. Mike Gurnis at CalTech is by far a superior mantle modeler. David Yuen at Minnesota is much better known than Baumgardner. You clearly set out to tout the credentials of Baumgardner to lend credence to his model. You failed and made a critical mistake in arguing from authority by failing to check the credentials of your authority. A double faux pas.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-15-2002 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 8:09 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 39 of 114 (15523)
08-16-2002 10:05 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 - 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/people/ross/ph226/planet/venus.htm

Now, 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]


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Randy, posted 08-16-2002 11:17 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4419 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 40 of 114 (15526)
08-16-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
08-16-2002 10:05 AM


Taz,
Venus may be a good place to start but the Earth after runaway subduction would probably make Venus seem pleasant by comparison. Imagine an atmosphere of supercritical steam containing a significant concentration of sulfuric acid.

As Tranquility Base has pointed out the Runaway Subduction Model has become the standard flood model for “mainstream” YECs. Though primarily associated with Baumgardner, the ICR paper is authored by a veritable who’s who of creation “science”. I think it is actually hard to overstate the total absurdity of this "standard" YEC model. I have come to calling it the BFM (boiling flood model as suggest by EdenNod on MSN talkorgin). First the mantle viscosity drops by a factor of one billion presumably because it is superheated by some miracle. Then runaway subduction occurs releasing 10^28 J of gravitational potential energy, then the entire ocean floor is replaced with super hot mantle material, probably releasing at least another 10^28 J of heat. The ocean (or at least a significant fraction of it as admitted by Baumagardner) boils converting the atmosphere to high pressure steam. 10^28 J is more than twice the energy needed to boil all the water in all the oceans. The gases released from the massive volcanism would probably kill everything except that everything would already already be dead from the heat.

10^28 J is about 2500 times the amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun in a year. It is released on the surface of the earth and the air is pumped full of water vapor, a very effective greenhouse gas (as well as a lot of outgassed CO2). And what happens next? Why a massive ICE AGE of course!!

What I find interesting is that all these famous YECs seem to have totally forgotten the first law of thermodynamics. 10^28 J is about 20,000 times the heat required to heat the atmosphere by 100C. You just can’t release that much heat on the surface of the earth without killing off all life. And BTW boiling the oceans is a very efficient way to transmit this heat to the atmosphere. Rejecting the RSM/BFM model is not like rejecting Shroedinger’s equation because it doesn’t predict spin as TB says. It is more like rejecting the idea that the earth is supported by 4 giant turtles. I find it amazing that people with any scientific training can have anything to do with this ridiculous “model” but it does seem to be the best that top YEC "scientists" can come up with.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-16-2002 10:05 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 8:17 PM Randy has responded

    
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 114 (15570)
08-17-2002 1:06 PM


Not to mention the fact that annihilating all life on earth is actually an egregiously evil act. But I suppose that doesn't factor into any known creationist "runaway morality subduction model".
  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 114 (15625)
08-18-2002 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Joe Meert
08-16-2002 6:50 AM


Joe

How can I possibly disentangle Baumgardner's contributions from that of his co-authors?! And why belittle computational contributions? I am a theoretical/computational biologist and I will defend my work as genuine science any day anyone wants to take me on!

Baumgardner is a demonstratably well respected simulator of plate tectonics. Do you really disagree with that?

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Joe Meert, posted 08-16-2002 6:50 AM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Joe Meert, posted 08-18-2002 9:07 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 45 by edge, posted 08-18-2002 9:16 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 114 (15626)
08-18-2002 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Randy
08-16-2002 11:17 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Randy, posted 08-16-2002 11:17 AM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 08-18-2002 9:36 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Randy, posted 08-18-2002 9:41 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 44 of 114 (15629)
08-18-2002 9:07 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? I am a theoretical/computational biologist and I will defend my work as genuine science any day anyone wants to take me on!

Baumgardner is a demonstratably well respected simulator of plate tectonics. Do you really disagree with that?


JM: Yes. I do disagree with the statement.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-18-2002]

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-18-2002]


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-18-2002 11:09 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4607
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


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 responded

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

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019