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

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?

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]

---

JM: He is a mantle modeler. He is out of the closet and professes young earth creationism at meetings such as AGU whilst hypocritically sponsoring old earth posters in another room. Baumgardner's model is good, but it is not the best there is. As with all computer models, they will give answers, but GIGO. Baumgardner's model can be tweaked to show there is no possibility for plate tectonics as well. The key is to match observations with the models. His Noachian model is not supported by any observational data.
In fact, the observations are unambiguously opposed to his model. By the way TB, Baumgardner, while a hypocrite, publicly announces his christianity and ye-stance unlike many other closet hypocrites who pretend to be something else for a buck or two.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

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.

---

​

I thought mantle convection, dynamics and plate motion goes under the domain of geophysics. Which he most definitely understands, Baumgardner has published articles on mantle convection and dynamics, plate motion, geodynamic earth models since 1982, which is 20 years ago in collaboration with many other famous geophysicists. So he has plenty of experience in this field. That means that he should easily qualify as a person who would know a lot about this topic.

---

JM: Actually, his publication record is rather meagre for someone with 20+ years of experience in the field. He has one first author book and 8 co-authored papers. Having said that, let's give credit where credit is due. He developed the Terra model and it is a useful (though not the best) code for mantle dynamics. He is most definitely a geophysicist though he is NOT a geologist. He has good knowledge of mantle dynamics and kinematics. He also knows quite well that computer models such as his will give answers dependent on the input. One can make the mantle do just about anything if one plays with the parameters. So this complex computer algorithm results in rapid drift. One only has to assume unrealistic models for mantle viscosity to get this result, but the result has some very simple consequences. One of them is the amount of heat released during this 'collapse' and the second is the depth profile of the oceanic crust. I've dealt with the first one at THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS . Others have discussed the heat problem. The simple answer is that garbage into Terra results in a global flood (garbage out).

I should add that Baumgardner has a number of abstracts published as well, but these are not considered as peer-reviewed. Note that with his publication record, it is unlikely that Baumgardner would have received tenure at most major universities in the US.CheersJoe Meert

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

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.CheersJoe Meert

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

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.

---

JM: That is not the queston you asked earlier. As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, his computer model (after correcting some early errors) is ok. It's not the best, nor the worst. However, the people at Microsoft make a decent word processor, but I doubt if you'll find a Hemingway amongst the computer geeks who wrote the code.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-19-2002]

quote:

---

However, it closely matches the density profiles given by seismic models, and an argument in its favor is that there is presently no ocean floor on the earth that predates the deposition of the fossiliferous strata. (As in the model it would have subducted into the mantle).

---

JM: Mainstream geology reached this conclusion years ago without having to boil away the oceans, kill every living thing and have oceans only a few meters deep. Furthermore, there do exist slivers of oceanic crust older than the most fossiliferous strata. These are called ophiolites and are found around the world where oceanic crust was obducted. Baumgardner does not mention these slivers of old oceanic crust does he?

quote:

---

Not quite a billion, but rather a hundred million. However, the parameters are not unrealistic-

quote:

---

"yields more than eight orders of magnitude reduction in effective viscosity relative to a condition of zero strain rate. Indeed maximum strain rates implied by the calculated velocities are on the order of 10-4 s-1 --precisely in the range for which laboratory measurements have been made"--Baumgardner

---

​

---

JM: They are completely unrealistic. Sorry.CheersJoe Meert[Added missing close quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 08-19-2002]

quote:

---

For the calculation described below, a reference viscosity mo of 1 x 10^13 Pa-s, a thermal conductivity of 2 x 10^10 W m-1K-1, and a radiogenic heat production rate of 0.02 W/m3 are used.

​

Now I seem to recall that the mantle viscosity is about 10^22 Pa-s so this is a billion times lower. Joe can correct me if I am wrong. However, more than 100 million times lower as Baumgardner admits is unrealistic enough to show that the calculation is totally unrealistic as well.

​

This model would be falsified by its other problems even if it didn’t inevitably autoclave the earth. Steamed Ark Soup anyone?

---

JM:The asthenosphere is ~10²¹ Pa*s and the lower mantle probably on the order of 10²² Pa*s so Baumgardner's values are a bit more than absurd. Are the other values correct? Thermal conductivity of 2 x 10^10 W/m K?????? There must be an error. For example, the thermal conductivity of most earthen materials range somewhere between 1-4 W/m K. So there's an overestimate even worse than the mantle. Heat production in the crust (where most of the radioactive material resides) is variable, but generally units of 1-10 micro-watts per m^3 are used so his values here are overestimates by 10^6-10^7 compared to the earth. Are those numbers correct? I somehow never noticed those. If the model was absurd before, it now borders on the ridiculous.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge

​

I don't have a problem with Noah disembarking at the end of the flood year at high elevation (as suggested in Scripture) while the flood tectonically sorts itself out over decades and even centuries at lower elevations. Simple solutions like this often exist and that is why it is improper to rule out possibilties with such quick shrugs. Such a Biblically consistent time extension of the flood might easily save the model and account for the actual prehistory of our planet.

​

PS - 6 generations after Noah we have 'Peleg' who was so named becasue 'the earth was divided in his time'. During this few hundred years longevity also dropped from 600 years or so to about 120 years. Perhaps the dregs of accelerated decay extended through these several hundred years after the flood seperating the continents and depositing the last of the flood layering in the low-lands.

---

JM:Can you show me an artificial or real material with the following property?Thermal conductivity of 2 x 10^10 W/m KThanksThis is one of the parameters in the 'runaway subduction' model.Cheers
Joe Meert

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD | The Institute for Creation ResearchYou need to read the two articles carefully. The absurd value is used to get runaway subduction. So how about it, blitz? Can you show me a natural or artificial material with that high of a thermal conductivity? The article you refer to has time scales much too long for ye-creationism. Secondly, Baumgardner states there is no pre-fossil oceanic crust. This is false and ignores the volumes of material formed in ophiolites. Most old ocean floor is subducted but we have remanents of the older oceans. Baumgardner shows his naivete with regard to things geological.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

Is the 10^28 J from runaway subduction, 500 million years worth of radiodecay or both?

​

I'm aware that AIG doesn't go for Peleg like that - I simply raise it as a possibility.

​

I agree with everything you're saying except I still let the model sit there awaiting future advances. In the mean time I will agree with you that the heat at this point is a model killer.

---

JM: Don't forget the misuse of parameters and the fact that the ocean floor is now deeper than 15 meters predicted by Baumgardner. The model committed suicide, there is no need for us to kill it.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Yes this is all very constraining. By maybe, in the wash, it all just works out and the ark really was there to protect those on baord from a truly bizarre event. And maybe we now know the real reason for the marine extinctions. Only small pockets of life survived to repopulate.So I'll believe that. I'll beleive that the Bible is not kidding in talking about a recent global flood.You can believe that life evolved from slime.It's faith for both of us. [/QUOTE]JM: In the end, if the science is unsalvageable, take a leap of faith. The ultimate cop-out. Furthermore, you can toss in a non-sequiter to go along with it. The existence/non-existence of a global flood has nothing to do with whether or not one agrees with evolution nor does evolution say life evolved from slime. Sometimes, your statements make me wonder if you are making up your credentials.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I don't think that changes the validity of what I said.

---

JM: YOu're correct because you've yet to say anything valid.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Of course evolution is proven. There isn't a molecular biologist on earth who could deny it. We can watch bacteria evolving in front of our eyes. We just always end up with the same set of genes.

​

So if eyes didn't evolve from skin protrusions then what? The descendants of naimlas with eyes didn't have eyes, or optic nerves.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-24-2002]

---

What does any of this side show have to do with the topic at hand? Have you also learned the Gish gallop as part of your creationist internship?CheersJoe Meert