Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (for TC and Sylas)

Hey all,Sylas mentioned starting a new thread on Dr. John Baumgardner and his work in the "Good and Bad Science" thread. I'm interested in what he does (I want to get into the same field) but I question his motives and so far I haven't seen much of a reason to find his work at all compelling.So let's discuss - my main problem with catastrophic plate tectonics is that it seems to be based entirely on attempting to prove a global flood. Is there any reason to consider such an alternative to conventional plate tectonics if this biblical base is removed? I would also like to find out the entire scope of Dr. Baumgardner's work - has he any field evidence of CPT, and if so where can I find it?Here's a site on CPT for the interested.The Rock Hound

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Ok, let's kick off the show...I should explain why I question the good doctor's motives - as far as I can see, his only interest is in proving the bible. The actual science (which is very important) is secondary to this. I came to this conclusion after reading this interview. To quote:

quote:

---

I would say my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple. In our day it's like the Philistines in the days of Saul and David. When David came to the battle to bring some supplies to his brothers, he heard Goliath taunting the armies of Israel. And David said, "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (1 Samuel 17:26). I believe the church is like the Israelite army, cowering in the face of Goliath, when there ought to be people stepping forth to slay Goliath. God's Word is being mocked and ridiculed today throughout the academic world, and I say it's time for Christians to stand up and take on these challenges.

​

Soon after I became a Christian, when I was 26 years old, I started to see what was going on. I guess God put it in my heart to try to do something about this situation.

---

He starts with a bias towards one particular interpretation, which leads to...

quote:

---

I'm trying to understand what happened to the Earth in Noah's flood and put together a solid scientific case that supports the biblical account of a world- destroying catastrophic flood.

---

quote:

---

I believe that there is strong evidence in favor of the proposition that the Earth has suffered a major cataclysm in the past that is responsible for most of the fossil-bearing portions of the sedimentary record.

---

quote:

---

There's an abrupt beginning to the portion of the geological record that contains fossils. There's a worldwide discontinuity in the record, above which we find fossils, below which we do not. Above that boundary there is abundant evidence that the sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly by processes that were global in lateral extent-a regime dramatically different from anything we can observe on the Earth today. The majority of the sedimentary record since that point is the product of global catastrophism.

---

I assume he's referring to the Cambrian-Precambrian boundary. This for starters is mostly false - the fossil discontinuity he describes does exist, but the geological layers after this point were not deposited rapidly, were not created by global processes, and were not radically different from what we observe today.

quote:

---

My work in particular has focused on what conceivable mechanism could result in such an event. I believe I have identified it or at least a likely candidate for a mechanism.

---

He's missed a vital point in his research - actual evidence. It is not enough to say that something is merely possible; to show that it actually happened, the field evidence must at the very least not falsify it. So what evidence would we expect to see if CPT occurred?

quote:

---

Actually, evolutionists do not have a viable mechanism for macroevolution at any stage, whether we're talking about the origin of a first living cell or the origin of new structures in existing organisms. Natural selection and mutation alone are pitifully inadequate to account for what we see, especially with our current understanding of molecular biology.

---

The interview was recorded in 1998. As far as I'm aware, even then this question was answered.

quote:

---

And in the area of Earth science, uniformitarianism-the idea that the present is the key to the past, that the present can explain the past-is essentially obsolete. It won't be long, in my opinion, before that idea completely collapses.

---

I feel that maybe he just doesn't fully understand uniformitarianism. He gives his reason for this as being:

quote:

---

The evidence for catastrophism supports an entirely different understanding of the fossil record-that it's a product of a single catastrophe rather than hundreds of millions of years of gradual change.

---

This makes no sense. How can a single tectonic event produce the entire geological record from the Cambrian onward?

quote:

---

I'm sympathetic to Christians who recognize that much of the information portrayed as science in the media and in public schools is hostile to Christian belief. For Christians who are not scientifically trained, it's legitimate that they are alarmed and concerned.

---

Ah, the whole 'evolution being taught in schools' thing again. "It's only a theory, that doesn't mean it's true!" Perhaps in reference to the media alone, this kind of paranoia is justified, but not otherwise.I will allow that he might have been misrepresented in this interview, or perhaps he has gotten a little older and wiser in the intervening years. I certainly hope so...But it seems 100% clear that he is conducting this research with the presumption that the global flood of the bible occurred. So without this presumption, is there any basis left for CPT?(BTW I can't post all that regularly so I might just leave this topic to whoever wants to get involved - just don't expect a timely response from me.)The Rock Hound

quote:

---

quote:

---

Baumgardner: And in the area of Earth science, uniformitarianism - the idea that the present is the key to the past, that the present can explain the past-is essentially obsolete. It won't be long, in my opinion, before that idea completely collapses.

---

​

I feel that maybe he just doesn't fully understand uniformitarianism. He gives his reason for this as being...

---

I think it is a safe bet that Baumgardner does not understand the concept of uniformitarianism in its modern usage. This is what he says on his website:

quote:

---

Uniformitarianism asserts that one can correctly interpret the earth's past solely in terms of presently observed processes operating at near present day rates. Lyell's slogan, "the present is the key to the past," encapsulates this outlook. Of course, implicit in Lyell's dogma is that the huge amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow processes operating over an immense span of time as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

---

First of all, he feels compelled to return to the original formulation of uniformitarianism and beat up on Lyell who has been dead for over a hundred years.Second, "...solely in terms of observed processes..."??? Where did that come from? Have we actually observed a cometary impact?Third, it hardly seems dogmatic that one might think that evidence of existing things is somehow an indication of past events. But Baumgardner prefers to poison the well, anyway.Fourth, the highlighted section shows that Baumgardner prefers to argue to a strawman. There is NO geologist that I know who thinks that all processes are slow and acted over long periods of time. We actually believe that many important processes are rapid and catastrophic acting over short periods of time within a larger time scale.Simply put, despite Chris' admiration for Baumgardner, the man has no clue about geology or most of its processes and products. His only purpose is to propose a mechanism for a global flood that has no evidence. As Joe Meert said earlier, the only reason for CPT to exist is to support a biblical flood that has no actual evidence.Keep in mind that this is just one paragraph of Baumgardner's website. I have little doubt that the rest of them can be critiqued similarly and probably will be by Chris himself someday in the future.Global Flood - Home Of Global Flood(edited to add link)This message has been edited by edge, 05-15-2004 07:53 PM

There is also a little heat problem with runaway subduction. Chris left that discussion hanging last Septemberhttp://EvC Forum: Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading -->EvC Forum: Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor SpreadingJust the heat from solidifying the new ocean crust is enough to boil the oceans away more than once. When the heat from the cooling lithosphere is added in the problem will be magnified.Randy

quote:

---

First of all, he feels compelled to return to the original formulation of uniformitarianism and beat up on Lyell who has been dead for over a hundred years.

---

--I don't find anything wrong with it, if you call this 'beating up' on him, then I have no problem with anyone 'beating up' on anyone.

quote:

---

Second, "...solely in terms of observed processes..."??? Where did that come from? Have we actually observed a cometary impact?

---

--No we havent actually observed a significant cometary impact. Technically, however, impacts would be interuptions in uniformitarian continuum. Similarily, the evolution of the oceanic lithosphere does not have a uniformitarian history. Nevertheless, geologists understand that uniformitarianism is merely a framework principle, and not to be taken dogmatically.

quote:

---

Third, it hardly seems dogmatic that one might think that evidence of existing things is somehow an indication of past events. But Baumgardner prefers to poison the well, anyway.

---

--Baumgerdner is saying that it is dogmatic to assume that uniformitarianism is ultimately flawless in all respects as being applicable for every nanosecond of earth history.

quote:

---

Fourth, the highlighted section shows that Baumgardner prefers to argue to a strawman. There is NO geologist that I know who thinks that all processes are slow and acted over long periods of time.

---

--It was a relative statement, so you aren't making sense.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Just the heat from solidifying the new ocean crust is enough to boil the oceans away more than once. When the heat from the cooling lithosphere is added in the problem will be magnified.

---

--If the oceanic lithosphere had an initial temperature significantly less than ~1400 - 1600 K, it would be more of a problem than the larger number. The reason for this is because the only potential escape out of this heat problem is to essentially eliminate conductive (and convective to some degree of applicability) heat transfer (ie, heat transfer directly into or within the superposing ocean water as a final destination). Hence the hypothesis of 'steam jets'. I have not seen any calculations on how effective this process would be, so I think it is ridiculous to assert that this heat problem has been substantiated conclusively.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This will sound dismissive, and I suppose it is. I find Baumgardner interesting for the psychology involved; geologically there is nothing here of much interest.Baumgardner has an excellent scientific reputation by virtue of his development of the TERRA program for numerical modeling of convention in the Earth's mantle. His proposal for the flood is that a plume of hot material in the mantle came rushing up from within the earth, and caused the global flood. That is highly simplified; but what is interesting is that the TERRA program can show how the flood occurs. Or, under different assumptions, it can model the effects of many millions of years of the rather more sedate convection used in conventional geology. Pick your numbers, and you can model either result.Baumgardner (apparently) considers that this shows either case is reasonable, and that the conventional geological models are thus not in principle any better than his catastrophic flood geology.No credible geologist agrees with him. One could quibble about what is a credible geologist; but I think this is a fair assessment of the case. However, Baumgardner manages to work effectively within the mainstream community because he does not push his religious views with colleagues, and is happy for his software to be used with more conventional parameters to model the conventional geological cycles.The problem is that there is no good evidence for his model, and the parameters he introduces are not physically sensible. As such, I don't see that Baumgardner solves anything at all. The real reason that the flood was tossed out by scientists about two hundred years ago is that there is no evidence that any such thing ever occured, and ample evidence for long histories of development. Bamgardner simply does not address that evidence. He proposes a rapid speed up of radioactive decay (unphysical, unevidenced) to "explain" radiometric data. If the problem with the flood was lack of mechanism, then Baumgardner's speculations might be interesting. But it isn't. The flood was thrown out not because of lack of mechanism, but because of evidence for long histories of unflooded geology.Basically, for Baumgardner the flood is still a miracle. The miracle is expressed in terms of changes to scientific laws on heat conductivity and radioactive decay and whatever else. But that does not really make any difference, nor does it make any difference to the reasons the global flood is pseudoscientific codswallop.I'm not a geologist; TC has much better geological credentials than I. But I don't think one needs to be a great geologist to appreciate that Baumgardner simply does not give any meaningful response to the arguments for an ancient earth with a long geological history. His alternative story is a fantasy, which would have left abundant traces if it had occurred. It is only maintained by ignoring the evidence which could be used to test whether or not the events proposed in his runaway subduction model actually occured or not. Baumgardner's focus on giving a realistic model, quite apart from being unconvincing, simply misses the whole point.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

If the oceanic lithosphere had an initial temperature significantly less than ~1400 - 1600 K, it would be more of a problem than the larger number. The reason for this is because the only potential escape out of this heat problem is to essentially eliminate conductive (and convective to some degree of applicability) heat transfer (ie, heat transfer directly into or within the superposing ocean water as a final destination.

---

What do you mean by initial temperature? Do you mean the temperature before the process starts or the initial temperature of the new lithosphere? In any case you have to get the heat of fusion out of the lithosphere which I calculate will be on the order of 2 x 10^28 J as well as the 10^28 J from cooling and solidiying the new crust. The total amounts to nearly 10 times the amount of heat needed to boil the oceans and several thousand times the amount of heat needed to heat the atmosphere past the point where life could survive. Steam from boiling water is about the most efficient way there is to transfer heat to the atmosphere.

quote:

---

Hence the hypothesis of 'steam jets'. I have not seen any calculations on how effective this process would be, so I think it is ridiculous to assert that this heat problem has been substantiated conclusively.

---

What I think is ridiculous is the thinking that the problem can be solved with some ad hoc mechanism involving steam jets when no one has ever seen any calculation to show that such jets are even possible, let alone that they would take more than 99% of the heat away without cooking the atmosphere. If there is a calculation can you give us a link or a reference?Randy

RandyDon't forget the 1400 to 1 expansion factor when the water turns to steam and the slightly missing evidence of the damage such an explosion would have caused.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

e: First of all, he feels compelled to return to the original formulation of uniformitarianism and beat up on Lyell who has been dead for over a hundred years.

​

--I don't find anything wrong with it, if you call this 'beating up' on him, then I have no problem with anyone 'beating up' on anyone.

---

The point is that no one dogmatically accepts uniformitarianism as it was originally formulated. Nowadays, we call it 'actualism' and it is significantly different from Lyell's version (which worked well for his time). So tell us, please: Why does Baumgardner argue against a concept that no modern geologist accepts?

quote:

---

e: Second, "...solely in terms of observed processes..."??? Where did that come from? Have we actually observed a cometary impact?

​

--No we havent actually observed a significant cometary impact. Technically, however, impacts would be interuptions in uniformitarian continuum.

---

No, they are part of the actualist (uniformitarian) continuum. Every geologist accepts them as a fact. You can't get much more 'uniformitarian' than that.

quote:

---

Similarily, the evolution of the oceanic lithosphere does not have a uniformitarian history. Nevertheless, geologists understand that uniformitarianism is merely a framework principle, and not to be taken dogmatically.

---

(emphasis added)So then, what is Baumgardner's point? He says the we take it dogmatically and you say that we don't. What's the story?

quote:

---

e: Third, it hardly seems dogmatic that one might think that evidence of existing things is somehow an indication of past events. But Baumgardner prefers to poison the well, anyway.

​

--Baumgerdner is saying that it is dogmatic to assume that uniformitarianism is ultimately flawless in all respects as being applicable for every nanosecond of earth history.

---

No one takes the original formulation of uniformitarianism as 'ultimately flawless'. So, Baumgardner's argument is a silly semantic strawman. Why does he not address what geologists actually believe? You should be asking youself this question.

quote:

---

e: Fourth, the highlighted section shows that Baumgardner prefers to argue to a strawman. There is NO geologist that I know who thinks that all processes are slow and acted over long periods of time.

​

--It was a relative statement, so you aren't making sense.

---

LOL! Why can't Baumgardner make a clear, direct and honest statement on this? Talk about not making sense! Baumgardner says that 'geologists believe this, which is clearly wrong according to the evidence' that we all agree upon. The problem is that geologists don't believe this.That is a strawman argument. There is no way around it, Chris. You have accepted a logical fallacy as a valid argument.

quote:

---

Baumgardner has an excellent scientific reputation by virtue of his development of the TERRA program for numerical modeling of convention in the Earth's mantle. His proposal for the flood is that a plume of hot material in the mantle came rushing up from within the earth, and caused the global flood. That is highly simplified; but what is interesting is that the TERRA program can show how the flood occurs. Or, under different assumptions, it can model the effects of many millions of years of the rather more sedate convection used in conventional geology. Pick your numbers, and you can model either result.

---

I read the Baumgardner site on CPT last night and seem to remember that his model did not account for the time it would take to develop the gravitational instability necessary to generate runaway a situation. His solution? Simply say that the condition existed originally!(added by edit)By the way, check out this site to see what some of Baumgardner's Los Alamos colleagues think of his ideas. The words 'pompous', 'arrogant', 'religious zealot' and 'simplistic' figure prominently.http://globalflood.org/letters/lilley290896.htmlThis message has been edited by edge, 05-16-2004 11:29 AM

quote:

---

No credible geologist agrees with him.

---

It is pretty easy to see why. His "model" has no evidence in its favor and a great host of problems. Just today I started to wonder how Baumgardner accounts for the extensive fossil record of sessile benthic organisms. The whole ocean floor was supposedly subducted quite rapidly during the flood. How is that sessile benthic organisms, which were fastened to the bottome and particularly infaunal benthic organisms, which bore into ocean floor sediments, were not sucked right on down into the mantle? I would think that even some mobile bottom dwellers would have been either sucked down as well or maybe blown into space by the "steam jets". So how does not only a fossil record but an ordered fossil record of these creatures exist? Not only do their fossils exist but in many cases the holes they bored in ocean sediments as they lived can be found. How does that happen if their entire habitat was rapidily subducted into the mantle as Baumgardner claims?Randy

quote:

---

...Just today I started to wonder how Baumgardner accounts for the extensive fossil record of sessile benthic organisms. The whole ocean floor was supposedly subducted quite rapidly during the flood...

---

Apparently, while some of the oceanic crust is sinking, some of it was also rising. This is from the conclusions of Baumgardner's 1994 paper on numerical modeling:

quote:

---

This calculation illustrates that with relatively modest initial perturbations, gravitational potential energy stored in the earth's upper thermal boundary layer drives an overturning of the mantle that pulls the Pangean supercontinent apart, moves the continental blocks by thousands of kilometers, elevates much of the newly formed seafloor above sea level, floods essential(ly) all of the continental surface, and produces dramatic downwarpings of the continent margins that lie adjacent to zones of subduction.

---

(emphasis added)Obviously he has no further explanation of how this occurs or where we might find this elevated Paleozoic oceanic crust with most of the geological record attached.We also have to remember that Baumgardner believes that all of this happened in one year. This involves an incredibly high sedimentation rate which makes the survival of benthic organisms, anywhere other than the base of the record, quite unlikely.

But he says it is the newly formed seafloor that rises. The newly formed seafloor would presumably not have life on it since would have just formed and since it was molten I don't think any fossils would be preserved by it. So I don't see how this explains a fossil record of sessil benthic organisms. Also it seems to me that if the rising of the new ocean floor caused the sea to flood over the continents then free swimming marine life and continental land life from every geological era should be buried together, assuming that the fossil record somehow resulted from this process.Randy