Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

Which confuses me. Why would an omnipotent being choose a natural phenomenon to destroy life when a snap of the finger should do it. Furthermore, why do YECs so readily accept the natural phenomenon of a flood (albeit a fantastic one) to end life, and yet the origin of life must be supernatural?

Basically, Baumgardner is a nut. I know that Chris will disagree, but in the only interview I've seen of him, the ultimate defense of his model was "God said it, an that's all ther is to say," or something very close to it.

Actually, I think the opposite. With slow rates of subduction the only force is gravity and the slab drops like a rock (so to speak). In fact, I believe that they see tensional earthquakes in steeply dipping subduction zones as the slab is stretched by gravity. In more rapidly converging areas, the slab extend beneath the overiding plate and tends to show more telescoped igneous compositions. The Andes would be an example.I think Baumgardner's subducting slabs are vertical or nearly so. We simply don't see this. There are plenty of vertical subduction zones but none are 'unstable.' I don't see any way of developing an instability that would not sterilize the earth. This is Baumgardner's main problem, of course. And, of course, he has no answer.I think you had a good observation on the folding aspect of convergence. At high strain rates, you may as well kiss ductility goodbye.Using normal physical properties of the crust and asthenosphere, there is no possibililty of developing such 'instabilities'. Baumgardner knows this, and frankly, I think he really has no confidence in his modeling. That is the real reason for avoiding the mainstream publications.In a way, Chris is correct. CPT is not ready for publication. The real question is, "will it ever be?" I will say no, and that is based upon the fact that there is utterly no evidence that it has ever happened, along with the observation that it has languished for such a long time. At least ten years longer, in fact, than the time that we have been discussing here. Since the early days, there has only been increasing evidence AGAINST cpt. I think I know how this race will turn out. All that they have is a model. Not an ounce of reality. We used to talk about 'reality checks' in geology, and it's time for Chris and others to take an objective look at where they are. Sure, we could analyze this for generations, but most of us have to move on. PT works.

You sound like a YEC, Chris. Railing against the evils of uniformitarianism (yes, I'm exaggerating). What you don't seem to realze is that virtually all geologists are catastrophists. What you need to overturn is 'actualism', unless you want to fight a battle that was over long ago. And there is good reason that CPT does not have the data: there isn't any. There is only a model with some vague lines of reasoning. Basically, the ONLY reason for CPT to exist is to justify a young earth. Nothing else. Absolutely. I've said it before and will, no doubt, have to say it again: science is basically conservative. Darwin understood this, which was, perhaps, his principla genius. He did what CPT proponents, YECs and IDists SHOULD be doing: collecting data. If you want to overthrow a reigning paradigm, come with lots of data and present it well.

So, Chris...If normal subduction results in normal amounts of volcanism, what would be the effects of CPT on the volcanic record?

Baumgardner is the one who finds instabilities in his modeling. I have nothing to do with it. Why would there be such a 'bulge' if the slab is being pulled down by gravity only at the subduction zone? Doesn't sound like runaway subduction to me... Well then, I'd say that Baumgardner's model lacks something. If he cannot model accurate geometries, why should we accept his numerical model? Just a qualititative guess on my part. I would say that strain rates thousands of time higher than the present would probably almost eliminate ductile deformation of the crust. Well, since I have to go over cross-bedding evertime it comes up, I'll say 'yes'.If you want to invoke accelerated decay as a heat source, it starts sounding like an ad hoc explanation to me. Then you have to arrive at some ad hoc reason why radioactive decay accelerated and then another ad hoc reason why it stopped. And then you need another ad hoc explanation of why the earth was not sterilized by heat generation and/or toxic volcanic emissions. Do you see where this is getting you? What you need is some evidence to support even one of these explanations.To say that the Flood must have occurred because of CPT, because of accelerated decay, because of...Please. One piece of evidence. Not just a story. Or a numerical model. Facts.

Then maybe you shouldn't discuss 'uniformitarianism', because your outdated version is very different from the modern understanding of uniform processes. And sometimes they lead, well, elsewhere. Well, that would be your problem, wouldn't it?

[qs]e: So, Chris...
If normal subduction results in normal amounts of volcanism, what would be the effects of CPT on the volcanic record?Chris: Not too much (different) than we see, I think.
-Chris GroseSAY WHAT???? You want to accelerate sudbuction by thousands of times and generate an entire geological record of volcanism in a 'year' and yet, you don't think volcanism would be any different from what we see today? I'm sorry but this requires an explanation. What kind of catastrophist are you?

The fact that there is no evidence to support them is NOT my problem. Yes, I know about this. The problem is that there should be no horizontal compression if the force driving CPT is actually simple gravitational pull-down. Think about it. 'Could' and 'did' are quite separate concepts. I doubt the first and totally reject the second, based on evidence. Really? So how does Baumgardner assume that the 'instability' will be propagated in the third dimension? Isn't this a rather large assumption? Certainly, but the difference is between brittle and ductile strain. When we are talking about folding, we generally think of it as ductile deformation. So, you admit to being vague on the subject. Must have? Why? What is the evidence that it must have occurred? Then maybe you should explain again. This is all getting very muddled. You have a bunch of mechanisms that you don't think were connected, but must have occurred. Or maybe not... Your thinking is becoming more and more muddled. We have subduction occurring today. So, where is the CPT? More to the point, where is the flood?

Then you should make an attempt to refute actualism and not imply that we do not believe in catastrophes. Maybe you should explain then. I fail to see why your lack of evidence constitutes a contradiction on my part.

But if we had thousands of times more hydrated oceaninc crust and overlying sediments being subducted, wouldn't that result in at least a little bit more volcanism? And if not, wouldn't you be chilling the asthenosphere to the point where its viscosity would rise so as to choke of CPT? Wow. So ALL of the island arcs, magmatic provinces and the entire oceanic crust of the world being formed in one year would look no different than what we see today. Unbelievable....Try thinking about this for just a minute, Chris, and remember that rigid stubbornness does not necessarily indicate genius.

Then you have a problem. I am sorry, but claims such as CPT require evidence. What you need to do is predict what effects CPT would have on the geological record, that would be unlikely to have been produced by normal PT, and then look for those effects. That would be evidence. So, what is that force. Baumgardner relies upon only gravity as far as I know. I agree. However, it would be good to use this tool to make some predictions and then find corroborating evidence. Up to now CPT is only a model and, as far as I'm concerned, it could tell us that the plates floated on petroleum and came from the moon. I'm glad that we have your opinion. However, most rock mechanics people would suggest that lower strain rates favor ductile behavior. Well, how about normal radioactive decay and old ages? Chris, do you really think that mainstream geologists have not thought about this? Do you think they would not have noticed radionuclides could not be explained by normal geological processes? You don't seem to give much credit to your predecessors. This is all very good for mental gymnastics, but that is all that you are doing right now. You need evidence to go one way or the other. Maybe you can wait a career or a lifetime to know everything, but in the meantime, people like me have to go out and use some kind of model or technology to function in the real world. You have major problem here and that is that the evidence you give is also evidence for mainstream PT, which is currently OBSERVED and explains the geological record more than adequately. You need to give us something concrete and diagnostic of CPT if you want to be taken seriously.I'm beginning to think that you are simply a dyed-in-the-wool YEC. They seem to have the same problem understanding what evidence is. It's like saying that the little gulley in my back yard is evidence of a flood. To YECs this makes sense, but to scientists it's a head-shaking piece of illogic. I've said it before and probably will again, Chris, you are way to smart to take this seriously.

I thought you were implying that we are all blinded by a 'uniformitarian mindset'. If not I apologize. I assure you that most geologists these days are, in a way, very catastrophist in outlook.

But your model for producing magma is by adding water to the lower crust and mantle. So, how do you want it? Cooling the mantle and outer core by rapdily subducting cold oceanic lithosphere along with water-loaded sediments will quence the very heat instability that Baumgardner needs. If we take 4000 kilometers of oceanic crustal and supracrustal materials and send them to the CMB, what happens to the thermal instability?At the same time you HAVE to dewater the huge crustal load somewhat; and you HAVE to produce virtually all of the volcanic rocks in a year, more or less. And this wouldn't be any different from the volcanism in quantity and composition that we see today? I think you are sweeping a major problem under the rug here, Chris, by simply ignoring it. But just think what evidence this would be, if you could find it! Oh, they probably could, because CPT is nothing but a numerical model. The point is that you need evidence FOR CPT that is also evidence refuting, or at least unexplainable by PT.You also have another fallacy here in that it is not up to me to find evidence or reasoning for CPT. That is your job, if you want to promote the model.

Flood basalts?!!!! So there! More evidence for a flood!