Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 6:34 AM
15 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,006 Year: 5,043/19,786 Month: 1,165/873 Week: 61/460 Day: 3/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 114 (13746)
07-17-2002 11:30 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 07-18-2002 4:53 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 3 by R. Planet, posted 07-18-2002 8:49 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4517
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 114 (13784)
07-18-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
07-17-2002 11:30 PM


One thing that AIG doesn’t mention in that piece is Baumgardners model isn’t used by NASA with the time scales he uses when writing for creationist tabloids. But AIG conveniently overlooks that little tidbit. Some unsuspecting dupe may be led to believe that NASA “believes” as he does. Also, if Baumgardner is a young earth creationist then why does he publish in science journals using 100s of million year time frames with his model?

Abstract: <http://www.geophysics.princeton.edu/Geodynamics/HTML/page3.top.html>

TIME SCALES AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE IN GEODYNAMIC EARTH MODELS
Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M.A., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Baumgardner, J.R., Grand, S.P., and Romanowicz, B., 1998, Science, 280, 91-95
Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep mantle heterogeneity structures imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150 million year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models.

So it seems his model can be used for anything from a few days or weeks up to hundreds of millions of years.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 9:12 PM R. Planet has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 114 (13786)
07-18-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
07-18-2002 4:53 PM


Edge

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.

For me having someone like Baumgardner gives me confidence that our POV is in the right ballpark. It confirms to me that the nay-sayers have as much of an agenda as we do. That's how I think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 07-18-2002 4:53 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 2:05 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 114 (13787)
07-18-2002 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by R. Planet
07-18-2002 8:49 PM


R. Planet

I took it as implicit that NASA didn't use Baumgardner's spped up versions! AIG could have been clearer for the uninitiated - I agree. All of us knew that implicitly though.

I also have to use evolutionary terminology in my mainstream publications (homology etc). In my lectures I call (distant) homology as 'homology/taxonomic realtionships'. That is how I get around the problem in my field. I can't see any way of Baumgardner getting arond using 'millions of years' in his work and still get published. I don't have a problem with Baumgardner doing that. The prevailing model and bias is a reality. I and he are obviously realists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by R. Planet, posted 07-18-2002 8:49 PM R. Planet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by R. Planet, posted 07-19-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 6 of 114 (13790)
07-18-2002 10:02 PM


I believe Baumgardner's work first show up (at Evolution versus Creationism) at the below cited:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=7&m=11#11

There was much discussion of his ideas, at that topic.

Moose

Added by edit: My first response can be found at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=7&m=40#40

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

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 07-18-2002]


    
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 114 (13796)
07-19-2002 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
07-18-2002 9:12 PM


quote:
I took it as implicit that NASA didn't use Baumgardner's spped up versions! AIG could have been clearer for the uninitiated - I agree. All of us knew that implicitly though.

Well if you read the interview and weren’t initiated, and you had read Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati and had read in chapter 1, p 26. where it says “ Dr. John Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in Nature” you might be a little confused. Baumgartner’s “catastrophic” modeling only appears in creationist tabloids.

quote:
I also have to use evolutionary terminology in my mainstream publications (homology etc). In my lectures I call (distant) homology as 'homology/taxonomic realtionships'. That is how I get around the problem in my field.

But you don’t say these homology/taxonomic relationships are due to common descent.

quote:
I can't see any way of Baumgardner getting arond using 'millions of years' in his work and still get published. I don't have a problem with Baumgardner doing that.

So getting published trumps ethical considerations?

quote:
The prevailing model and bias is a reality.

Turn that around a bit and it goes like this; The prevailing model is reality, and those that are biased say “no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

quote:
I and he are obviously realists.

Yeah


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 9:12 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-19-2002 2:51 AM R. Planet has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4517
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 114 (13798)
07-19-2002 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by R. Planet
07-19-2002 1:59 AM


R. Planet

I wont deny that the reporting in some creationist books may incorrectly suggest that Baumgardner's catastrophics is accepted mainstream. But it is true that his computer model is widely recognized as very good. In what way he gets his runaway subduction from it is unknown to me but I can imagine that he tweaks parameters, some quite different from current values, and shows that you can get a runaway effect. For us that tweaking of eg mantle temperatures comes from acclerated radiodecay for example.

Correct - I avoid discussing whether the homology/taxonomic relationships are due to common descent (except if we are talking closely related species - within families or genera). These are advanced courses I teach and the students already believe in common descent so they don't need more of it from a creationist! That is one of the few points where my scientific framework for life on earth actually effects the way I teach. But it makes no difference to 99.5% of what I teach.

Ethics? Not really. I'm not going to get on a creationist soap box on every paper I publish. I want my work to be judged for it's scientific validity in the relevant field which is not evolutionary. There is only one paper I have published which could be construed to be on an evolutionary topic and I and my collaborators speculated on the convergent or otherwise origin of a protein fold - and it just happened to be completely consistent with creation or evolution.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by R. Planet, posted 07-19-2002 1:59 AM R. Planet has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by wj, posted 07-21-2002 8:07 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 114 (13799)
07-19-2002 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by edge
07-19-2002 2:05 AM


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.

The nay-sayer agenda is automatic naturalism.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 2:05 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 10:40 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 12 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 10:49 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 13 by R. Planet, posted 07-20-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4517
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4517
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 114 (13876)
07-20-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
07-19-2002 2:55 AM


TB,
Jonathan Sarfati works for Answers in Genesis and his book is copywriter by them. This reinforces my claim that AIGs intention is to deceive.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base to Edge:
[B]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.[/QUOTE]

In what way is Baumgardner being covert? He writes his creationist works using his real name. It doesn’t seem to have affected his employment. He isn’t ’forced’ to write or say anything he doesn’t believe, and neither are you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:45 PM R. Planet has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 114 (13896)
07-21-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
07-19-2002 2:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
R. Planet
...
But it is true that his [Baumgardner]computer model is widely recognized as very good. In what way he gets his runaway subduction from it is unknown to me but I can imagine that he tweaks parameters, some quite different from current values, and shows that you can get a runaway effect. For us that tweaking of eg mantle temperatures comes from acclerated radiodecay for example.
...

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-19-2002]


Creationists want to use scientific models to produce some simple, observable outcomes to convince their flock that their religious beliefs are supported by science. For example, plate tectonics is too compelling to be ignored by the creationist flock when anyone can see the Africa - South America fit. So creationists such as Baumgardner manufacture a model which explains the simple, observable outcome but ignore other outcomes of their model. Joe Meert makes the following observation at http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm

"Baumgardner's model relies on unrealistic viscosity values and extreme values for other parameters in order to generate runaway subduction. There is no evidence to support the values used in the model although the computer will unashamedly generate the answer!"

Baumgardner can model the fit of Africa - South America to satisfy the undiscerning audience but can't produce the great ocean depths which have been measured. Joe Meert again:

"In short, the observed bathymetry is a near perfect match for an old earth model and seriously challenges the model proposed by Baumgardner and other advocates of rapid drift."

How many miracles have to be invoked to justify the religiously inspired concept of runaway subduction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-19-2002 2:51 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 8:54 PM wj has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 114 (13898)
07-21-2002 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by edge
07-19-2002 10:40 AM


Edge

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.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 10:40 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by edge, posted 07-21-2002 9:52 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019