Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!
Randy
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 76 of 114 (15792)
08-20-2002 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 8:57 AM


quote:
I fully agree with you that the heat is a huge constraint. But there just aren't enough people working on this to rule it out yet. If the entire process of continental drift is carried over decades rather than a year it might all work. With Noah disembarking at a high elevation then the tectonic aftermath of the flood could have gone on for decades afterward (and decades before).
If one spreads the energy to boil the ocean over a longer period it will not boil the ocean!
Sure, if you spread it over 150 million years you probably don’t have much problem at all.
quote:
I don't have a problem with Noah disembarking at the end of the flood year at high elevation (as suggested in Scripture) while the flood tectonically sorts itself out over decades and even centuries at lower elevations. Simple solutions like this often exist and that is why it is improper to rule out possibilties with such quick shrugs. Such a Biblically consistent time extension of the flood might easily save the model and account for the actual prehistory of our planet.
Calculation on heat radiation from an earth sized planet indicate that to shed 10^28 J of heat (probably less than the total released) in 100 years requires an average surface temperature over the whole time of about 300 C and even then you must ignore the effect of all the greenhouse gases that would have been pumped into the atmosphere. There is no saving this absurd model and the actual prehistory of our planet does not include Noah’s flood so there is no need to try to save it.
But in any case Buamagardner says that the subduction process was fast
Here’s a quote from an interview here.
Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire
That's correct. Exactly how long is something I'm working to refine. But it seems that once this sinking of the pre-Flood ocean floor starts (in a conveyor-belt-like fashion down into the earth, pulling things apart behind it), it is not a slow process spanning millions of years. It's almost certain that it runs to completion and, recycles' all of the existing floor in a few weeks or months.
I added the bold. Baumgardner also says that a significant fraction of the oceans boiled away. Anyone who thinks that a significant fraction of the oceans could boil without killing off all life on earth is ignoring some very basic science and in my opinion does not deserve to be taken seriously.
quote:
PS - 6 generations after Noah we have 'Peleg' who was so named becasue 'the earth was divided in his time'. During this few hundred years longevity also dropped from 600 years or so to about 120 years. Perhaps the dregs of accelerated decay extended through these several hundred years after the flood seperating the continents and depositing the last of the flood layering in the low-lands.
Now you are leaving Baumgardner and the runaway subduction model completely. It is explicitly stated that virtually all of the continent movement occurred during the flood year. In fact, I think most of it was supposedly over in 150 days. The division of the lands in the time of Peleg clearly refers to a political division and I doubt that any serious Bible scholars have ever thought it referred to physical separation of the lands. Even AiG rejects this one.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 8:57 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-20-2002 5:06 PM Randy has replied
 Message 79 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 9:49 PM Randy has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 77 of 114 (15798)
08-20-2002 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Randy
08-20-2002 1:20 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy:
Calculation on heat radiation from an earth sized planet indicate that to shed 10^28 J of heat (probably less than the total released) in 100 years requires an average surface temperature over the whole time of about 300 C and even then you must ignore the effect of all the greenhouse gases that would have been pumped into the atmosphere. Randy [/B][/QUOTE]
Please do not forget the acidization due to sulfates blowing through the seawater at high temperatures(I believe that I posted a link to this earlier). Likely it would have made the acid rain in the US and Canadian Northwest look very mild in comparison .
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Randy, posted 08-20-2002 1:20 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Randy, posted 08-20-2002 6:35 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 78 of 114 (15801)
08-20-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
08-20-2002 5:06 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy:
Calculation on heat radiation from an earth sized planet indicate that to shed 10^28 J of heat (probably less than the total released) in 100 years requires an average surface temperature over the whole time of about 300 C and even then you must ignore the effect of all the greenhouse gases that would have been pumped into the atmosphere. Randy [/B][/QUOTE]
Please do not forget the acidization due to sulfates blowing through the seawater at high temperatures(I believe that I posted a link to this earlier). Likely it would have made the acid rain in the US and Canadian Northwest look very mild in comparison .
[/B][/QUOTE]
I haven't forgotten it. It's just that its hard to kill things that are already dead. I think I said before that the final result will be supercritical acid steam.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-20-2002 5:06 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 114 (15804)
08-20-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Randy
08-20-2002 1:20 PM


Randy
Is the 10^28 J from runaway subduction, 500 million years worth of radiodecay or both?
I'm aware that AIG doesn't go for Peleg like that - I simply raise it as a possibility.
I agree with everything you're saying except I still let the model sit there awaiting future advances. In the mean time I will agree with you that the heat at this point is a model killer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Randy, posted 08-20-2002 1:20 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 08-20-2002 9:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 80 of 114 (15807)
08-20-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 9:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy
Is the 10^28 J from runaway subduction, 500 million years worth of radiodecay or both?
I'm aware that AIG doesn't go for Peleg like that - I simply raise it as a possibility.
I agree with everything you're saying except I still let the model sit there awaiting future advances. In the mean time I will agree with you that the heat at this point is a model killer.

JM: Don't forget the misuse of parameters and the fact that the ocean floor is now deeper than 15 meters predicted by Baumgardner. The model committed suicide, there is no need for us to kill it.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 9:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 10:38 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 114 (15809)
08-20-2002 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Joe Meert
08-20-2002 9:55 PM


^ 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 08-20-2002 9:55 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by edge, posted 08-20-2002 11:11 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 83 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 12:41 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 114 (15810)
08-20-2002 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 10:38 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 10:38 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 83 of 114 (15813)
08-21-2002 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 10:38 PM


quote:
Is the 10^28 J from runaway subduction, 500 million years worth of radiodecay or both?
I think we have been over this before. Here is what the ICR paper says
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."
This potential energy will mostly be converted to heat by friction during the subduction process. It has to be dissipated somehow. However, this is only a fraction of the heat released. The entire ocean floor is supposedly subducted and replaced by mantle material. The mantle material is so hot that it’s viscosity is far lower than mantle is now and it is supposed to be enough thicker due to thermal expansion to raise sea level another kilometer or so. The only way the sea level can come back down is for the new crust to contract and solidify. To do this it must release its heat content. I have seen estimates that this would release another 10^28 J or so but have not done the calculation myself. Remember that this mantle supposedly has a radiogenic heat production of 0.02 W/M^3 going on as well which will generate another 6.2*10^5 J/M^3 of mantle during the flood year. Not all of the radiogenic heat will be released to the surface but enough must be released to solidify the crust. You have heat sources on top of heat sources. Kurt Wise admits that the runaway subduction process releases enough heat to boil the oceans several times over and these along with massive vulcanism that must be occurring are the sources of the heat. That’s why it should be called the boiling flood model but I usually call it a recipe for steamed ark soup. As Taz points out it would be steamed ark soup flavored with sulfuric acid.
Randy
quote:
^ 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.
And did anyone say that continental drift was easy to falsify because it cooked the earth to death thousands of times over? I don't think so. The irony here is how otherwise intellegent people can so steadfastly refuse to apply logical scientific analysis to the boiling flood model in the vain hope that it may somehow be used to support their religious beliefs.
BTW to try to put 10^28 J in perspective a megaton of TNT is 4.18*10^15 J. 10^28 J is energy equivalent to 2.4 trillion one megaton hydrogen bombs.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 10:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-21-2002 1:11 AM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 114 (15815)
08-21-2002 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Randy
08-21-2002 12:41 AM


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. And maybe we now know the real reason for the marine extinctions. Only small pockets of life survived to repopulate.
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.
It's faith for both of us.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 12:41 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Joe Meert, posted 08-21-2002 7:12 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 86 by edge, posted 08-21-2002 5:07 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 97 by R. Planet, posted 08-24-2002 1:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 85 of 114 (15818)
08-21-2002 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tranquility Base
08-21-2002 1:11 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]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. And maybe we now know the real reason for the marine extinctions. Only small pockets of life survived to repopulate.
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.
It's faith for both of us. [/QUOTE]
JM: In the end, if the science is unsalvageable, take a leap of faith. The ultimate cop-out. Furthermore, you can toss in a non-sequiter to go along with it. The existence/non-existence of a global flood has nothing to do with whether or not one agrees with evolution nor does evolution say life evolved from slime. Sometimes, your statements make me wonder if you are making up your credentials.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-21-2002 1:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 86 of 114 (15862)
08-21-2002 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tranquility Base
08-21-2002 1:11 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-21-2002 1:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 114 (15879)
08-21-2002 10:08 PM


Our faith that Noah et al somehow survived on the ark is not much different than you believing that the first cell somehow popped out of the proverbial soup.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 88 of 114 (15881)
08-21-2002 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tranquility Base
08-21-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Our faith that Noah et al somehow survived on the ark is not much different than you believing that the first cell somehow popped out of the proverbial soup.
And what makes you think I believe this. I'll let the others speak for themselves but I think it might be possible that life arose naturally though we may never figure out how and I accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and common descent but these are really separate issuses. I do notice that this claim is the last refuge of the cornered creationist. When faced with overwhelming evidence against the global flood don't give up. Just attack abiogenesis.
Your faith in old Noah is a purely religous belief that obviously can never be swayed in spite of the fact that there is massive evidence against a global flood and none for it.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-21-2002 10:08 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-21-2002 10:31 PM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 114 (15884)
08-21-2002 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:19 PM


^ I don't think that changes the validity of what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:19 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Joe Meert, posted 08-22-2002 7:06 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 91 by edge, posted 08-22-2002 5:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 93 by John, posted 08-22-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 90 of 114 (15900)
08-22-2002 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Tranquility Base
08-21-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I don't think that changes the validity of what I said.
JM: YOu're correct because you've yet to say anything valid.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-21-2002 10:31 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024