Jump to content


Photo

Gradualists Using Creationist Computer Model


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

#21 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 September 2010 - 09:23 AM

Because he likes his job? Do you think his employer or anyone that isn't a creationist is in the habit of accepting work involving continents moving at hundreds or thousands of miles a year and all the geographic features of the world being produced in a single year from a global flood?
By no one I mean no-one that isn't a creationist since that's what this thread is about.  Your OP said "Gradualists using creationist computer model".  No gradualist is using his runaway subduction idea.
They can and do (look up scablands flood, black sea flood etc.), but they don't use his runaway subduction model, which is what you claimed.
Again, show me where you are getting the idea that the model referenced in the second article involves a initial huge catastrophe rather than a gradual spreading of the plates through slow processes.  If a creationist produces a model of how plates would move over millions of years (whether he personally believes it or not), does that count as a creationist or gradualist model?

View Post



Hmm, well I guess the article is lying then. Since it says Baumgarder's model "...appears to answer one of the fundamental questions of plate tectonics: what forces caused Pangaea...to break up into today's continents."

Numbers, do you sincerely think that the break up of Pangaea was non catastrophic? Whether or not gradualists are 'using' Baumgardner's model per se, one thing is sure. The research behind his model--that is the research he wrote of that you probably have not read--is basis for a good catastrophic model which could most certainly cause an earthquake or earthquakes big enough for the splittling of an entire continent. And the program he wrote is able to handle those numbers--for the first time in history.

If you think that there is a model somewhere, or some numbers somewhere, that shows a mechnism by which a continent could just gradually pull apart, then why would Baumgardner, a known YEC, be involved anyway. Who is going to "make" him do a model. He is a geophysicist, and studies the inner earth. He has to know how to work the equipment and moniter what's going on down there--that's his primary job.

His modeling was motivated by his convictions, not his boss. To do otherwise would, in any committed evangelical Christian's eyes, be a total sellout. If you think differently--it is because you are not a committed Christian.

#22 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 11 September 2010 - 10:20 AM

Hmm, well I guess the article is lying then.  Since it says Baumgarder's model "...appears to answer one of the fundamental questions of plate tectonics: what forces caused Pangaea...to break up into today's continents."

Not lying, its just not giving any details about if the model is anything related to his runaway subduction idea. Which means you can't claim it as evidence that gradualists are using his runaway subduction idea.

Numbers, do you sincerely think that the break up of Pangaea was non catastrophic?

Assuming by catastrophic you mean some sudden rapid shift in continent position then yes I do think it was non-catastrophic. That doesn't mean there weren't accompanying earthquakes and volcanic eruptions like you normally find around plate interfaces. But there wasn't a global catastrophe that caused Pangea to rapidly break up. Just look up the timeline involved for any description of Pangea. The various splits into present day continents occur over the course of millions of years.



Whether or not gradualists are 'using' Baumgardner's model per se, one thing is sure.  The research behind his model--that is the research he wrote of that you probably have not read--is basis for a good catastrophic model which could most certainly cause an earthquake or earthquakes big enough for the splittling of an entire continent.  And the program he wrote is able to handle those numbers--for the first time in history.

If you think that there is a model somewhere, or some numbers somewhere, that shows a mechnism by which a continent could just gradually pull apart, then why would Baumgardner, a known YEC, be involved anyway.  Who is going to "make" him do a model.  He is a geophysicist, and studies the inner earth.  He has to know how to work the equipment and moniter what's going on down there--that's his primary job. 

He'd most likely be involved because he wrote the software that produces the model.

Person A: "Hey could you use your software to show me what it would look like if the continents slid apart at 4 inches a year over the course of millions of years"
Baumgardner: "This is what it would look like"
Person A: "Do you believe this actually happened over millions of years"
Baumgardner: "No, but if it did, this is what it would look like"

Just like anything else in any other field, it's perfectly possible to use values that you don't believe are accurate to answer someone's question.

Businessman A: "Could you show me the projected profits for widget A given a demand of X and supply Y"
Economist B: "Here's what they would be given those values"
Businessman A: "Do you believe these demand and supply numbers are realistic"
Economist B" "No, but if they were, that's what the profits would be"

#23 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 September 2010 - 12:58 PM

Not lying, its just not giving any details about if the model is anything related to his runaway subduction idea.  Which means you can't claim it as evidence that gradualists are using his runaway subduction idea.
Assuming by catastrophic you mean some sudden rapid shift in continent position then yes I do think it was non-catastrophic.  That doesn't mean there weren't accompanying earthquakes and volcanic eruptions like you normally find around plate interfaces.  But there wasn't a global catastrophe that caused Pangea to rapidly break up.  Just look up the timeline involved for any description of Pangea.  The various splits into present day continents occur over the course of millions of years.
He'd most likely be involved because he wrote the software that produces the model.

Person A: "Hey could you use your software to show me what it would look like if the continents slid apart at 4 inches a year over the course of millions of years"
Baumgardner: "This is what it would look like"
Person A: "Do you believe this actually happened over millions of years"
Baumgardner: "No, but if it did, this is what it would look like"

Just like anything else in any other field, it's perfectly possible to use values that you don't believe are accurate to answer someone's question.

Businessman A: "Could you show me the projected profits for widget A given a demand of X and supply Y"
Economist B: "Here's what they would be given those values"
Businessman A: "Do you believe these demand and supply numbers are realistic"
Economist B" "No, but if they were, that's what the profits would be"

View Post


Numbers,

May I suggest you take it up with Andrew Snelling PhD. Here is the initial quote by which I found the New Scientist article.

Also, a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.  11

11.  J . Beard, How a supercontinent went to pieces, New Scientist 137:19, January 16, 1993. 


Snelling is talking about the model of CPT as a theme for his article, there is no ambiguity. Note that Snelling says "tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included."

The "questions" Baumgrdner's model answers is based on the research of deformation rates of mantle rock, and the plausibility of runaway subduction. If Baumgarder changed his numbers for old earthers, he would not be credited for a MODEL, but a PROGRAM. He is credited for a model in the article, as attested by Snelling. The MODEL is created by a creation scientist, not an old earther, according to Snelling.

So the scenarios you are suggesting are in your own mind, not in Snellings or Baumgardners, nor in the mind of the J Beard, who wrote the New Scientist article. If you want to believe Snelling is lying too, that is your perogative. I am taking in what I see. Actualists can include massive catastrophe in their old earth model (e.g. world extinction of dinosaurs; Permian Triassic Extinction Event)

So yes, I hold to my claim, whether you agree or not.

#24 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 12 September 2010 - 03:30 PM

Numbers,

May I suggest you take it up with Andrew Snelling PhD.  Here is the initial quote by which I found the New Scientist article.


Also, a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.  11 

Snelling is mixing up two different things, can't tell if it's intentional or not. Read the entries for source 10 (the first sentence you quoted)

J.R. Baumgardner, Numerical simulation of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 17–30, 1986; J.R. Baumgardner, 3-D finite element simulation of the global tectonic changes accompanying Noah’s Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 35–45, 1990; J.R. Baumgardner, Computer modeling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 49–62, 1994; J.R. Baumgardner, Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood, in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 63–75, 1994; J.R. Baumgardner, The physics behind the Flood, in R.L. Ivey, Jr., ed., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 113–126, 2003


Not a single cite from anything other than a creationist conference when he identifies the model.

Now reread the last sentence. ...this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.
Is there any chance in the world that something considered the world's best has only been presented at creationist conferences? Not a single publication in any mainstream peer reviewed literature and it's considered the world's best? Or could it possibly be that the article listed in cite 11 isn't referencing the model from cite 10?

Also note the change from "...3-D supercomputer model" to "...3-D plate tectonics modeling" which would be consistent with reference to a process or program in the second sentence rather than the particular model from the first sentence.

#25 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 September 2010 - 04:56 PM

Snelling is mixing up two different things, can't tell if it's intentional or not.  Read the entries for source 10 (the first sentence you quoted)

J.R. Baumgardner, Numerical simulation of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 17–30, 1986; J.R. Baumgardner, 3-D finite element simulation of the global tectonic changes accompanying Noah’s Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 35–45, 1990; J.R. Baumgardner, Computer modeling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 49–62, 1994; J.R. Baumgardner, Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood, in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 63–75, 1994; J.R. Baumgardner, The physics behind the Flood, in R.L. Ivey, Jr., ed., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 113–126, 2003


Not a single cite from anything other than a creationist conference when he identifies the model.

Now reread the last sentence.  ...this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best. 
Is there any chance in the world that something considered the world's best has only been presented at creationist conferences?  Not a single publication in any mainstream peer reviewed literature and it's considered the world's best?  Or could it possibly be that the article listed in cite 11 isn't referencing the model from cite 10?

Also note the change from "...3-D supercomputer model" to "...3-D plate tectonics modeling" which would be consistent with reference to a process or program in the second sentence rather than the particular model from the first sentence.

View Post

Numbers,
I really don't see the point of continually bantering. Snelling and Baumgardner have a working relationship along with Austin and others in the creation movement. Snelling has a better perspective on this issue than either of us. He made a statement in writing. If you want to question his veracity or whether he's confused--you can assume what you want.

The bottom line is that old earthers acknowledged at least some of Baumgardner's research for the break up. Obviously, they are not going to use the entire model, becasue it is YEC, but the numbers are legit and backed by research, so they most certainly borrowed something from Baumgarder. That has happened all through science history. One scientist builds on another's work. Even if the scientist is wrong on some points--it is found that part of his theories were correct.

#26 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 12 September 2010 - 05:44 PM

Numbers,
I really don't see the point of continually bantering.  Snelling and Baumgardner have  a working relationship along with Austin and others in the creation movement.  Snelling has a better perspective on this issue than either of us.  He made a statement in writing.  If you want to question his veracity or whether he's confused--you can assume what you want.

The bottom line is that old earthers acknowledged at least some of Baumgardner's research for the break up.  Obviously, they are not going to use the entire model, becasue it is YEC, but the numbers are legit and backed by research, so they most certainly borrowed something from Baumgarder.  That has happened all through science history.  One scientist builds on another's work.  Even if the scientist is wrong on some points--it is found that part of his theories were correct.

View Post


I'm ok with letting this drop. Will you acknowledge that of the 3 links you posted as evidence:

The first doesn't identify baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics being used as compared to a more mainstream gradual breakup.
The second doesn't identify baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics being used as compared to a more mainstream gradual breakup.
The third doesn't identify baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics being used as compared to a more mainstream gradual breakup.

#27 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 13 September 2010 - 04:50 AM

Just had to laugh as I was researching today.  Here's the gradualists being caught in the act.  They are taking John Baumgardner's 3D computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics hypothesis to explain the breakup of Pangaea. 

I would like to hear the explanations of evolutionists and gradualists on this.  Scientists using a "pseudoscientist's" work.  Richard Dawkins, one of evolution's modern spokesmen, says creationists aren't scientists, so why would "real" scientists ENDORSE their work?

Incidentally, catastrophic plate tectonics comes from flood geology, not old earth gradualism.

Here's an excerpt off New Scientist: http://www.newscient...to-pieces-.html
___________

And here, they are citing the above article for the breakup of Pangaea hypothesis.  http://www.thaindian...o_10068561.html
____________

And this Geology article cites Baumgarder's model for the breakup of Pangaea. http://geology.gsapu.../8/735.abstract
_____________

For those of you who aren't familiar with Baugardner's computer model you can find it here:

Video

http://www.answersin...ics-closer-look

Technical Paper

http://www.icr.org/i...escaletectonics

Please, no knee jerk reactions to the word "scripture."  He is not saying that scripture is the final authority, no matter what, or no matter what data comes out. He is saying if the scriptural history model is true, and the fossil bearing layers are from a cataclysmic flood [the extent and condition of said fossils are not considered probable by creationists under an old earth model--AFJ], there must be a mechanism by which this happened.  Catastrophic plate tectonics is a proposed hypothesis for this.

View Post


Like numbers, I cannot find that you have provided any evidence of what you assert here, that anyone outside of creationist circles have "used" Baumgardner's theory of catastrophic plate tectonics. All I have ever seen evidence of in all of this is that his computer modeling technique has been used in convection studies by mainstream geophysicists, but by inputting different values for various parameters which yield quite different results. But this has already been posted.

The only relevant source you have cited is your first one, and that apparently is a report of Dr. Baumgardner doing his own work using his computer model, and not anybody else.

And here, they are citing the above article for the breakup of Pangaea hypothesis. Link


The second article does not reference Dr. Baumgardner's New Scientist article as you claim. Thaindian appears to be a source that reports new things published in scientific journals. Baumgardner's New Scientist article was in January, 1993 and was hardly news on July 8, 2008. I wonder how many dozens of New Scientist entries about plate tectonics may have been published in over 15 years? That is a fairly long time in a new area of science such as plate tectonics. Anyway, the one that is being talked about here apparently has nothing to do with Dr. Baumgardner's catastrophic theory. Actually they are referencing an article published the day before, in July, 2008 and not the one from 1993.

Pac-Man supercontinent ate itself to pieces
18:00 06 July 2008 by Jason Palmer

The reason you are sitting where you are right now may be because Pangaea, the most recent supercontinent to gather together all the world's landmasses together, ate itself nearly 300 million years ago.

Convection in the Earth's mantle shifts the floating continental plates around, eventually driving them together into supercontinents every few hundred million years. We know supercontinents eventually break up again, but it is not clear how they do this.

Gabriel Gutiérrez-Alonso of the University of Salamanca in Spain and colleagues think they may be able to explain the most recent break up which split Pangaea into today's continents. They have proposed a mechanism called "self-subduction", which would explain several geological mysteries better than prior theories.

In standard subduction, one tectonic plate slips under another. The situation could have been slightly different 300 million years ago because Pangaea was shaped like a pie with one piece missing. This area was occupied by an ocean called Paleo-Tethys.

Who ate all the pies?

The new theory has it that, as Pangaea's southern coast moved northward, the ocean began to close up. Eventually, the continent's southern continental shelf was subducted beneath the northern coast.

"It's like a cat trying to bite its own tail," says Fernando Corfú, a geologist at the University of Oslo, and one of Gutiérrez-Alonso's collaborators.

The theory predicts that the land in Pangaea's centre would have compressed, explaining the Iberian-Armorican Arc, a twisted mountain range that is known to have stretched from modern-day Turkey up to the UK and then down to Spain.

Meanwhile, the rest of the pie would have stretched to breaking point, allowing surrounding oceanic plates to move into the gaps. This explains why a number of ancient rifts, including ones that can be visited today in Norway and Madagascar, were once arranged radially like the spokes of a bicycle.

Journal reference: Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo250


Pacman

As has already been pointed out the third reference was to an entirely different scientist, P.O. Baumgartner, who is apparently a much more frequently published French biostratigrapher. The immediate tip-off that this was probably not a double typo (involving both first and last names) was that the study of biostratigraphy is vastly different than that of geophysics.

So I agree with numbers that you have provided no evidence in support of the contention in your OP and elsewhere in the thread.

The bottom line is that old earthers acknowledged at least some of Baumgardner's research for the break up. Obviously, they are not going to use the entire model, becuase it is YEC, but the numbers are legit and backed by research, so they most certainly borrowed something from Baumgarder. That has happened all through science history. One scientist builds on another's work. Even if the scientist is wrong on some points--it is found that part of his theories were correct.


Perhaps somebody outside of creationist circles has borrowed something other than the use of his computer programing, but I doubt it and you certainly have yet to make that case.

Andrew Snelling wrote:

A catastrophic model of plate tectonics (as proposed by creation scientists) easily overcomes the problems of the slow and gradual model (as proposed by most evolutionist scientists). In addition, the catastrophic model helps us understand what the “mechanism” of the Flood may have been.  A 3-D supercomputer model demonstrates that rapid plate movement is possible. Even though this model was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling technique is acknowledged as the world’s best.


Snelling

You will notice how Snelling picks his words? He refers to a "3-D plate tectonics modeling technique" and not Baumgardner's "catastrophic model" when making a claim for it being considered of a superior nature. I do have to wonder if he does not want us all to jump to the conclusion you have, which appears to be erroneous. As I understand it, the modeling technique is not forced fit so it can only be used using catastrophic parameters.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users