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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Let's just remember how hard it was for continental drift to become accepted. Sniff . . sniff. I am detecting high levels of irony around here.

---

There is, however, a major difference. Wegener had evidence and a theory, but no mechanism. You, on the other hand, have only a poorly concocted theory and a fantastic mechanism for an event that there is no evidence ever happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. Please explain.

quote:

---

And maybe we now know the real reason for the marine extinctions. Only small pockets of life survived to repopulate.

---

This is just another example of how creationists can rationalize anything, but the point is that there would be no 'small pockets of life.'

quote:

---

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.

---

Nice propaganda tactic, but no substance.

quote:

---

It's faith for both of us.

---

Not really. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. In your case, this is very true. You have none. In the case of old earth-evolution, at least there is evidence.

quote:

---

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

---

Well the whole point is that what you posted was not valid. Your cartoon version of evolution is a joke. Besides, there are lines of evidence that life arose naturally. There is no evidence for a biblical flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ My cartoon version of evolution? I'm the one sticking to proven evolution - you're the ones extrapolating from beak shape changes to eyes, complete with optic nerves, evolving from skin protrusions!!

---

Yes, another cartoon version. "Life from slime" and "eyes from skin." Are you sure you don't want to add "molecules to man" to your arsenal. You haven't even a hint that these are gross oversimplifications (another propaganda tactic), that do not represent anyone's evolutionary progression. By the way, now you are saying that evolution is proven??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
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 ?

---

I'm sure that there is a way around this for the creationists using a few known facts dressed up in a cloth of vivid imagination. Probably the deeper/earlier sediments were suddenly uplifted before they could be cooked. I mean, hey, there are brachiopods found on Mt. Everest, aren't there? Now, run with that!But you are correct. If the model under discussion were valid there would be a much higher percentage of metamorphic rocks than what we see today. One thing we know is that regions of high heat flow are usually underlain by nascent batholiths. Any sedimentary rocks at depths greater than a few kilometers would be thoroughly cooked. The presence of low temp/hi pressure metamorphic terranes argues against this. But never mind ... these are just details. Hunches seem to carry greater weight with our creationist crowd. Got any?[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.

---

However, some do confuse Baumgardner's model with a viable theory. So, is it still your 'hunch' that these 'musings' are actually better at explaining the earth than mainstream science?