|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: Then you are easily swayed. And just what do you think this agenda of nay-sayers is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, he's not a geologist.
quote: No. The only thing driving Baumgardner on this is his interpretation of the bible.
quote: Oh, no, it does. You cannot get the viscosities and heat flows without sterilizing the earth. That would include the ark.
quote: Wow, I hope you never berate us for making assumptions. This is exactly what he has done and not very realistic ones at that.
quote: My understanding is that this work is entirely outside his professional efforts. The subduction zones he has modeled look nothing like subduction zones that we can actually see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But AIG is okay, eh? Not sure about Baumgardner's rebuttal. But it probably goes something like this, "The bible says so, and that's all I need!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Let's see, have you explained yet how you fit all of that volcanism and tectonism into 2000 years, yet? It would seem to me that this would be a good time to do that. This should be an easy answer if you are in the right ballpark.
quote: It is your model. You need to make the adjustments. Besides, you don't have decades.
quote: Right, I'm the one that brings up details that you cannot explain, but I'm the one being simplistic.
quote: WEll, then, give us a time frame. The way I see it, you have from the flood to about 2000 years ago, max.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, I don't see 'Geology' anywhwere in those degrees so there isn't even a question of IF he's a geologist. As to the geophysicist part of the question, I suppose so. However, keep in mind that there are two types of geophysicist: those that understand geology and those that don't. Baumgardner, I assure you, is one of the latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: IT is also completely suggestive of Randy's point. Complete sterilization of a planet. Not exactly a strong point in favor of Baumgardner's model...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, for one, the computations are based on a complete lack of understanding and/or disregard for the geological data and geological premises. Baumgardner's motivations are strictly religious and have little to do with rationality.
quote: I have little doubt that your biolotical models are much more accurate and meaningful than Baumgardner's tectonic models.
quote: Thought I cannot speak for Joe, I can tell you my answer to this question, and I doubt that he would dissent much from my opinion: Emphatically, yes, I disagree. Baumgardner's only respect is from creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Does this mean that you are going to sidestep all of our questions regarding the details of your model?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: As long as the model is constrained by facts, yes, I agree. Baumgardner's model is not.
quote: I wasn't aware that this had not been done. I have seen many reconstructions of plate tectonics. Mostly constrained by data, however.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Sure the engine is fine, the problems come about when tweaking becomes whacking. Face it, Baumgardner is not a geologist. Nor is he 'mainstream' on this issue. Nor does he bother to constrain his model with actual data. He forces the model to fit the myth rather than the data.
quote: Not sure what your point is here. If you are talking about modeling, I would agree. I probably misunderstood what you said earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Aren't you neglecting one little detail here ... like, perhaps, evidence that either accelerated decay or runaway subduction ever happened? What Randy has given you is evidence that they never happened. Why do you ignore it?
quote: I'm not sure why anyone would conduct this work. If there were evidence that it had happened it might be a more fruitful endeavor.
quote: There is NOTHING indicating that this is the right direction. Perhaps that is why research is so lacking, don't you think?
quote: Not sure how you can simply ignore the facts here, TB. There is nothing to support this statement. If runaway subduction occured there would be no life on earth. THere is, apparently, life on earth. Therefore runaway subduction didn't happen. It is simple logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: That is precisely because it is such a huge constraint. Most rational people understand this and realize that the work to prove runaway subduction would be completely fruitless.
quote: Are you saying that Genesis cannot be translated literally? Or that Baumgardner is wrong? But no, the amount of heat release, as Randy has shown, cannot disipate that fast. You still poach the human race.
quote: Quite an assertion. Remember, we are talking several orders of magnitude greater energy than necessary to eradicate all life on earth. Are you just going to turn on and off such a huge heat engine like a water tap? What is the mechanism for this? Do you have some numbers to support this position?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024