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:
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.
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 GutiÃƒÂ©rrez-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 CorfÃƒÂº, a geologist at the University of Oslo, and one of GutiÃƒÂ©rrez-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
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“mechanismÃ¢â‚¬Â 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 worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s best.
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.