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

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?

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.

---

Your problem is not that you don't have all the answers. It's that you don't really have any of the answers. There is no worldwide flood model that makes the least bit of physical sense. You can't begin to explain where the water came from or where it went and of course this only one of many insoluble problems for flood believers. You might as well have God create the water for the flood and then uncreate it. Just don't call it science. At least you admit that your confidence comes outside of science.While Baumgardner may have writen the code for a program that gives a resonable model of plate tectonics over time scales of hundreds of millions of years when realistic numbers are plugged in, I don't see how anyone can respect the science of someone who says that bubbles of high pressure steam will rise quickly through the atmosphere and radiate their heat into space and puts forth a flood model that cooks the earth to death many thousands of times over. I am sure you know that old adage GIGO regarding computer programs and mathematical models in general. Runaway subduction is a classic example and it is Baumgardner who put in the garbage. Baumgardner et al's boiling flood model with racing continents falsifies itself so thoroughly and is so absurd that it would seem like satire if there weren't people who take it so seriously.Randy

JoeDoes 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.

EdgeI think we've got a new war going on here! Computation/theory vs experiment/observation. I think they're both important. 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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-18-2002]

RandyWe are simply proposing that the water came from the same place you get your marine innundations from - tectonically generated sea level changes. Yes we have a heat problem, I'll agree with you on that. But so many other apects of the model work nicely. Same problem with every model - conflicting data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

We are simply proposing that the water came from the same place you get your marine innundations from - tectonically generated sea level changes. Yes we have a heat problem, I'll agree with you on that. But so many other apects of the model work nicely. Same problem with every model - conflicting data.

---

I'll step in as a geo-representative (without nearly the authority of Joe Meert), and say that tectonically generated sea level changes are within mainstream theory. But not at the extreme rates and magnitudes that Baumgardner is proposing.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

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.

EdgeFrom 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.I quoted a plate tectonics guy several months ago saying that deterministic simulations of plate tectonics 'reproduce nothing like' the continental history we have. Protein folding is not much better. Take protein sequences, fold them deterministically on computer and you get a Nobel prize. I'm working on it!Saying you know the underlying forces is one thing. Qualitatively showing they reproduce the detailed phenomenon is another. It's so easy to say that protein folding is dictated by the hydrophobic effect and hydrogen bonding. Using this to predict protein 3D structure is another ball game called the 'protein folding problem'. Quantum chromodynamics (quark nuclear physics), climate and continental drift are equally difficult 'Grand Challenges'.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-19-2002]

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]

^ Both scientific and non-scientitifc coding have their own challenges. The difficulty for the Windows guys is trying to maintain interoperability with a hundred thousand formats/protocols etc while a project manager is breathing down your neck. Scientific coding in my experince is actually easier than Windows programming unless you have to optimize code for speed.

quote:

---

Yes we have a heat problem, I'll agree with you on that. But so many other apects of the model work nicely. Same problem with every model - conflicting data.

---

The heat problem is so severe that it totally falsifies the model. It is not just conflicting data. The existence of life on earth shows that the model is false. The inability of the model to predict a correct sea floor profile, as Joe has pointed out is another example of conflicting data. I suspect there are some other conflicting data as well. When you have enough conflicting data you should reject the model not the data.

quote:

---

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.

---

I would call dropping the mantle viscosity by a billion fold more than tweaking. Using totally unrealistic parameters is not tweaking. GIGO. But don't you claim that there are no good mainstream tectonic simulators? I don't know exactly how good Baumgardner's mainstream model is compared to others but it is obviously far better than his boiling flood model.

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.

---

I'll bet they all do a far better job than runaway subduction which predicts a sterilized planet with shallow oceans.

quote:

---

Protein folding is not much better. Take protein sequences, fold them deterministically on computer and you get a Nobel prize. I'm working on it!

---

And are you working on a model to show how proteins might have folded a hundred million times faster in the past than they do today in order to justify a religious belief? I rather doubt it.

quote:

---

Saying you know the underlying forces is one thing. Qualitatively showing they reproduce the detailed phenomenon is another. It's so easy to say that protein folding is dictated by the hydrophobic effect and hydrogen bonding. Using this to predict protein 3D structure is another ball game called the 'protein folding problem'.

---

And how far would you get trying to publish a protein folding model that used hydrogen bond strengths a billion times higher or a billion times lower than the measured values? This is essentially what Baumgardner is doing with mantle viscosities in his boiling flood model.
Randy

quote:

---

The inability of the model to predict a correct sea floor profile, as Joe has pointed out is another example of conflicting data.

---

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).

quote:

---

would call dropping the mantle viscosity by a billion fold more than tweaking. Using totally unrealistic parameters is not tweaking. GIGO. But don't you claim that there are no good mainstream tectonic simulators? I don't know exactly how good Baumgardner's mainstream model is compared to others but it is obviously far better than his boiling flood model.

---

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

---

quote:

---

"How do the parameters used in these calculations compare with those estimated for the earth? The values used for g, g, k, H, rr, cv, Tr, and a in eq. (1)-(5) are all reasonable to within +/-30% for the simplified reference state that is employed. The values used for the Clapeyron slopes for the phase transitions are two to three times too small and so the effects of the phase changes are underrepresented. The most important parameters are the reference viscosity and the threshold strain rate for power-law creep. The reference viscosity leads to velocities prior to runaway that are in accord with current observed plate velocities of a few centimeters per year. The threshold strain rates used are within the power-law creep region for olivine as given by Kirby (Fig. 1). A large uncertainty is the extrapolation of the creep behavior of olivine to the minerals of the lower mantle for which there is essentially no experimental data. The issue is not whether power-law creep occurs in these minerals but what the stress range is in which it occurs. It is likely the threshold strain rate is not many orders of magnitude different from olivine. These calculations therefore seem relevant to the earth as we observe it today."--Baumgardner

---

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 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:

---

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

---

From
COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD | The Institute for Creation ResearchFor 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?Randy

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]