Jump to content


Photo

Gradualists Using Creationist Computer Model


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

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 28 August 2010 - 06:18 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

Technology: How a supercontinent went to pieces
A geophysicist in the US has created a computer model that appears to answer one of the fundamental questions of plate tectonics: what forces caused Pangaea, the Earth's original single supercontinent, to break up into today's continents.

Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. 'Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 'But this is the first three-dimensional model that begins from a small set of basic principles and accounts for the main features of this geophysical drama.' 


___________

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


Scientists have come up with a plausible explanation for the splitting up of the supercontinent Pangea, attributing the break-up to a mechanism which caused the massive land mass to eat itself to pieces.

According to a report in New Scientist , convection in the Earth’s mantle shifts the floating continental plates around, eventually driving them together into supercontinents every few hundred million years.


____________

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

In the biozonation of Baumgartner [sic] et al. (1995), the UAZ range of Mirifusus ... The first signs of Pangea breakup....


_____________

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.

#2 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 29 August 2010 - 10:57 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

Where is everyone? No one wants to give us a rebuttal. Dawkins is a God hating propagandist, making his ignorant statements. People use this kind of thinking to justify their unbelief.

Let's stop stereotyping certain people because of their personal beliefs. Because Dawkins is an atheist, I would not question his intelligence, or say he is not a scientist.

Baumgarder is a geophysicist, and works at a national lab. His theories are just as valid as any other scientist's theories--just not popular because they are creationist.

#3 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2010 - 06:13 PM

Dawkins is a God hating propagandist, making his ignorant statements.

View Post


Dawkins is seriously underrated. His explanation of genic selection as the root of evolution (rather than the erroneous concept "species selection") may be one of the most crucial leaps in science education of our times.

#4 Flying Monkey

Flying Monkey

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Portland, OR

Posted 30 August 2010 - 11:10 AM

Where is everyone?  No one wants to give us a rebuttal.

I'm not really sure what needs to be rebutted. The evidence is quite clear regarding plate tectonics and the age of the earth.

Dawkins is a God hating propagandist, making his ignorant statements.

Can you disagree with someone without demonizing them? Dawkins is very intelligent and I doubt bothers hating things that he doesn't believe in.

People use this kind of thinking to justify their unbelief.

Very few people justify atheism with science. The reason why you find many atheists defending it, is because of all the religious people attacking it. Science has been and will continue to largely be the enterprise of religious people.

Let's stop stereotyping certain people because of their personal beliefs.  Because Dawkins is an atheist, I would not question his intelligence, or say he is not a scientist. 

Except you just stereotyped him as "god hating". And disagree with him all you want, but I think it is entirely unreasonable to refer to him as "ignorant".

Baumgarder is a geophysicist, and works at a national lab.  His theories are just as valid as any other scientist's theories--just not popular because they are creationist.

View Post

if he believes the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old then he is ignoring a lot of evidence. I'm guessing he is unpopular because of that.

#5 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 02 September 2010 - 06:52 PM

My main point is that a creationist has come up with a comp model, each pixel based on the laws of physics. The pixelized model runs according to scientific data--it is not an animation in any sense.

The reason I brought up Dawkins is that many evolutionists contend that "creationists" are not scientists. This is totally incorrect, and the fact that evolutionists are using his model of runaway subduction for the breakup of Pangaea is proof that creationists are just as much scientists as anyone else.

As for evidence, what evidence? For every point the evolutionists have brought up, scientists like Baumgarder and others have used the same science and the same logic to rebuttal them, or show circular reasoning and pre-assumed ideas.

#6 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 03 September 2010 - 09:52 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


I think you are confusing TERRA which is a simulator program written by Baumgardner with his runaway subduction flood model. The simulator is or was used to produce models of subduction accepted by geologists, his particular flood model has never been used by geologists.

I can write a homerun simulator that will model the baseball trajectory based on pitch speed, bat speed, angle, wind, etc. Using that simulator and the laws of physics I can model the trajectory of a homerun hit off a 500 mph fastball. Just because something can be modeled doesn't mean the idea that it happened should be taken seriously.

Creationists can be scientists, they just are unable to support creationism scientifically. Attempts to do so always end up either not being good science or not supporting creationism. In baumgardners case his model has problems including heat issues and lack of evidence that anything he proposed ever actually happened.

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


In the biozonation of Baumgartner [sic] et al. (1995), the UAZ range of Mirifusus ... The first signs of Pangea breakup....


You also appear to be mixing up different people. I don't think P.O. BaumgarTner is the same as John BaumgarDner


http://docs.google.c...cQGwp7NRWTpqUcw

Baumgartner, P.O., and Matsuoka, A., 1995, New radiolarian data from DSDP Site 534, Blake Bahama Basin, central Northern Atlantic, in Baumgartner, P.O., et al., eds., Middle Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous Radiolaria of Tethys: Occurrences, systematics, biochronology: Memoires de Geologie (Lausanne) 23, p. 709–715.

#7 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 05 September 2010 - 09:24 AM

Your last point is incorrect. It is a typo. There are three articles, which if you read closely, state that he works at Los Alamos National Lab. Anyone familiar with Baumgardner knows he works there as a geophysicist.

Baumgardner has a Ph.D. in geophysics and space science from the University of California at Los Angeles and works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, is Adjunct Professor of Geophysics at the Institute for Creation Research.[4] He is a member of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center.[5] Wkipedia


Compare to the article "Technology: How a supercontinent went to pieces"

'Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 'But this is the first three-dimensional model that begins from a small set of basic principles and accounts for the main features of this geophysical drama.' 




Whether deliberate or not, this is an attempt to discount by confusing the issue. A common distraction tactic in debate.

If Baumgardner has done anything else for actualist geology, I am unaware of it. I'm not so sure he would be motivated to do so. No more than Richard Dawkins would teach baraminolgy. I would challenge you to back your claims. Telling us what you can do on a comp, though noteworthy, is irrelevant to this issue.

The data entered into the breakup of Pangaea model is based on research of clay silicates and their plasitcity factors under heat and stress. Again it is not an animation but a pixelized model left to run it's own course--with the data being in each pixel. It is the same data he uses in the break up of the continents which could have marked the beginning of the deluge. He uses his model to support his hypothesis of runaway subduction.

The fact that actualists are using this, is again cherry picking to their own ends. The end of runaway subduction is ocean water meeting hot mantle rock and magma, causing massive steam gusts and precipitation.

It's the same thing as scientists attributing fossilized dinosaur peices in soft unstratified limestone--in areas that are 6000 feet above sea level--saying this area was under calm shallow seas 100 million years ago--when broken bones of dinosaurs found in dried lime mud hardly suggests a natural or calm scenario! The point being, it's all what time label you want to slap on it. The data as it sits is catastrophic, just like the breakup of Pangaea.

#8 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 05 September 2010 - 11:38 AM

Your last point is incorrect.  It is a typo.  There are three articles, which if you would read closely, state that he works at Los Alamos National Lab.  Anyone familiar with Baumgardner knows he works there as a geophysicist.
Compare to the article "Technology: How a supercontinent went to pieces"


It is not a typo, you haven't read the paper you linked if you think it is.

You linked to the abstract of a paper called "Pacific microplate and the Pangea supercontinent in the Early to Middle Jurassic" written by Annachiara Bartolini and Roger L. Larson
http://webcache.goog...ner&hl=en&gl=us

To get the full paper you can search google and look at the google scholar results. Look at the sources in the paper. You'll see that the source for the " the biozonation of Baumgartner" statement is a paper written by P.O Baumgartner not John Baumgardner. There are multiple references to P.O Baumgartner, but no reference to John Baumgardner in the paper you linked.


As for the magazine articles, the 2008 article just says that the continents float around.
According to a report in New Scientist, convection in the Earth’s mantle shifts the floating continental plates around, eventually driving them together into supercontinents every few hundred million years.
I wasn't aware that was a viewpoint that creationists claimed ownership of. I thought it's been pretty standard knowledge for decades.

The 1993 article is behind an archive/pay wall so I can't see the entire thing but it doesn't seem to say anything about a model supporting creationism. The only portion of it I can see related to Baumgardner is the 1 sentence you quoted. Can you provide the portion of the article where it identifies the model as one that supports creationist geology?

If your point is that creationists are capable of performing scientific work, then yes they absolutely can. But the work will either be unrelated or un-supportive of creationism. Simply modeling how plates move is not supportive of creationism. Baumgardner has to add in completely unsupported numbers and concepts like fountains of the deep to produce his runaway subduction.

#9 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 05 September 2010 - 06:35 PM

Fountains of the deep, what do you think that means?

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 05 September 2010 - 06:49 PM

According to a report in New Scientist, convection in the Earth’s mantle shifts the floating continental plates around, eventually driving them together into supercontinents every few hundred million years.
I wasn't aware that was a viewpoint that creationists claimed ownership of.  I thought it's been pretty standard knowledge for decades.

View Post


Numbers,

I think you are right about the third article, but the first two are indeed BaumgarDner.

Baumgardner doesn't claim ownership of tectonics,, but he was around in the sixties when the theory developed. But catastrophic plate tectonics originated in the creationist camp.

Here is the 2D and 3D comp model that Baumgarder did for his PhD dissertation and oversaw several grad students in it's research. This is not an animation. This is what the article in New Scientist is talking about. You will be able to see exactly how he based the model on physics and engineering principles. He explains it semi technically.

Runaway GO TO PART 2 FOR THE COMP MODELS

Also here are some more technical papers he wrote on it.

Catastrophic Tectonics

CPT

#11 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 05 September 2010 - 08:52 PM

Numbers,

I think you are right about the third article, but the first two are indeed BaumgarDner.

I know the other article is talking about baumgardner, that's why when I said you were confusing two different people I quoted the third article where the mistake was made.

Baumgardner doesn't claim ownership of tectonics,, but he was around in the sixties when the theory developed.  But catastrophic plate tectonics originated in the creationist camp. 

Here is the 2D and 3D comp model that Baumgarder did for his PhD dissertation and oversaw several grad students in it's research. This is not an animation. This is what the article in New Scientist is talking about.  You will be able to see exactly how he based the model on physics and engineering principles.  He explains it semi technically.


I know who Baumgardner is, and I know what his flood model is. I also know nobody is using it. I am fairly certain that the New Scientist article is talking about the TERRA software he wrote. Like any modeling software the model it produces is is dependent on the data that is entered. Nobody is using the same inputs as he does to produce his flood model.

Just a few excerpts from an article about his Terra simulation software that I think are relevant.
http://www.usnews.co...hive_007221.htm

Run Terra one way, and you can watch Noah's flood take place before your eyes, mathematically calculated by a supercomputer. Run Terra another way, and you get the standard geological story of 4.6 billion years. The results obtained from the code are--as Baumgardner readily points out--dependent on the numbers fed into it in the first place

Most members of the church believe, as Baumgardner does, that God created the river around 6,000 years ago. Terra can prove this for them. Or it can prove that the ancestral Rio Grande flowed massively across this plain in the late Tertiary Period, between 2 and 5 million years ago.

#12 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 06 September 2010 - 07:10 PM

I know the other article is talking about baumgardner, that's why when I said you were confusing two different people I quoted the third article where the mistake was made.
I know who Baumgardner is, and I know what his flood model is.  I also know nobody is using it.  I am fairly certain that the New Scientist article is talking about the TERRA software he wrote.  Like any modeling software the model it produces is is dependent on the data that is entered.  Nobody is using the same inputs as he does to produce his flood model.

Just a few excerpts from an article about his Terra simulation software that I think are relevant.
http://www.usnews.co...hive_007221.htm

Run Terra one way, and you can watch Noah's flood take place before your eyes, mathematically calculated by a supercomputer. Run Terra another way, and you get the standard geological story of 4.6 billion years. The results obtained from the code are--as Baumgardner readily points out--dependent on the numbers fed into it in the first place

Most members of the church believe, as Baumgardner does, that God created the river around 6,000 years ago. Terra can prove this for them. Or it can prove that the ancestral Rio Grande flowed massively across this plain in the late Tertiary Period, between 2 and 5 million years ago.

View Post


Numbers,
We are talking about the "break up" of Pangaea. Yes the program is TERRA. But the New Scientist is crediting him for a model which breaks up Pangaea. What Baugardner is putting forth is that his model is possible. It does not prove anything, neither does standard geology. But the mechanism of CPT works because of the possible properties of clay minerals--which have been researched. You can't just go putting any numbers you want, and have it taken seriously.

Of course, actualists are not going to use it. That's a given.

#13 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 06 September 2010 - 08:24 PM

Numbers,
We are talking about the "break up" of Pangaea.  Yes the program is TERRA.  But the New Scientist is crediting him for a model which breaks up Pangaea.  What Baugardner is putting forth is that his model is possible.  It does not prove anything, neither does standard geology.  But the mechanism of CPT works because of the possible properties of clay minerals--which have been researched.  You can't just go putting any numbers you want, and have it taken seriously.

Of course, actualists are not going to use it.  That's a given.

View Post


Where in the new scientist article does is say that the model in question is CPT rather than standard plate tectonics, demonstrated on his TERRA software? Please copy and paste the relevant section since I can't see the full article due to the pay wall.

All I can see is the first portion of the article:


A geophysicist in the US has created a computer model that appears to answer one of the fundamental questions of plate tectonics: what forces caused Pangaea, the Earth's original single supercontinent, to break up into today's continents.

Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 'But this is the first three-dimensional model that begins from a small set of basic principles and accounts for the main features of this geophysical drama.'

The basic energy source driving large-scale geological changes is heat: the immense reservoir of thermal energy in the Earth's interior, augmented by the decay of radioactive elements, induces convection currents in the mantle-the 3000-kilometre-thick layer of silicate rock between the core and the ...


Nothing in there indicates that the model being discussed is the creationist version of plate tectonics.

#14 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 07 September 2010 - 04:20 PM

Where in the new scientist article does is say that the model in question is CPT rather than standard plate tectonics, demonstrated on his TERRA software?  Please copy and paste the relevant section since I can't see the full article due to the pay wall.

All I can see is the first portion of the article:


A geophysicist in the US has created a computer model that appears to answer one of the fundamental questions of plate tectonics: what forces caused Pangaea, the Earth's original single supercontinent, to break up into today's continents.

Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 'But this is the first three-dimensional model that begins from a small set of basic principles and accounts for the main features of this geophysical drama.'

The basic energy source driving large-scale geological changes is heat: the immense reservoir of thermal energy in the Earth's interior, augmented by the decay of radioactive elements, induces convection currents in the mantle-the 3000-kilometre-thick layer of silicate rock between the core and the ...


Nothing in there indicates that the model being discussed is the creationist version of plate tectonics.

View Post


Numbers,

The article does say "A geophysicist in the US has created a computer model...." It did not say, "A geophysicist in the US has created a computer program...."

Two--this is the press, who can be very soundbite -ish and vague.
_________________________________________________________

I know that Baumgarder's model and hypothesis--CPT-- starts with Pangaea. Remember that modern geologists consider themselves actualists, which means they accept catastrophe as a means of explanation.

Posted Image

Posted Image


This is part of his online paper--don't know if it has been refereed. But I know he does have refereed research papers. Please read this, as it gives the research supporting the numbers in the model.

BREAKTHROUGH IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF THE RUNAWAY MECHANISM

Link

Numerical methods now exist for modeling and investigating this runaway mechanism.  Considerable challenge is involved, however, because of the extreme gradients in material strength that arise [6, 8].  W.-S. Yang, a graduate student with whom I worked closely, focused much of his Ph.D. thesis research effort at the University of Illinois on finding a robust approach for dealing with such strong gradients in the framework of the finite element method and an iterative multigrid solver.  He showed what is known as a matrix dependent transfer multigrid approach allows one to treat such problems with a high degree of success.  Although his thesis dealt with applying this method to 3D spherical shell geometry, he subsequently developed a simplified 2D Cartesian version capable of much higher spatial resolution.  Details of this method together with some sample calculations are provided in a recent paper [27].

This new formulation of the multigrid solver represents a breakthrough in treating large local variations in rock strength and allows the mantle runaway process to be modeled to completion for the very first time.  Results I have reported in previous ICC papers only tracked the runaway to its earliest stages.  Beyond that point available numerical methods failed.  Although the underlying equations themselves indicated runaway most certainly would occur, computer methods were not available that could handle fully developed runaway conditions.  Moreover, the new solver technique now allows a regime of rock deformation known as plastic yield that involves an even greater degree of instability.  This important plastic flow regime, because of the increased level of instability it introduces, had not been included in previous efforts to model the runaway process.

Figure 1 is a plot of the primary deformation regimes as determined by many careful laboratory experiments for the common mantle mineral olivine.  The heavy lines separate the three main regimes: diffusion creep, dislocation or power-law creep, and plastic yield.  Finer lines of constant shear strain rates are plotted as a function of temperature and shear stress.  (For readers unfamiliar with the terminology, strain has to do with the amount of deformation per unit length and so is dimensionless.  Strain rate is the change in strain per unit time and so has units of inverse time.  Stress has units of force per unit area, the same as pressure.)  Note that the rates of strain, or deformation, displayed in this plot for these solid olivine crystals vary over fourteen orders of magnitude!  This range of deformation rate easily brackets the rates observed in the runaway calculations.  (A tectonic plate moving 10 m/s, or 22.4 mph, relative to some substrate below, with a 10 km thick weak zone in between, implies an average shear strain rate of 10-3 within the weak zone, for example.)  In regard to the three regimes, diffusion creep involves migration of point defects (extra or missing atoms) through the crystalline lattice in response to applied stress, while dislocation creep involves planes of atoms moving relative to each other in a more or less coherent way.  In the plastic yield regime, such large numbers of dislocations emerge that huge increases in deformation rate occur with very little increase in shear stress.

It is relatively simple to represent these three deformation regimes as analytical expressions that can be incorporated into a numerical model.  To do this, based on these experimental data, an effective viscosity is defined as a function of shear stress, shear strain rate, and temperature.  On each time step a new viscosity field is computed based on the current values of these quantities.  This effective viscosity field is then used in the finite element procedure to compute the new velocity field on the next time step that in turn is applied to update the temperature field and compute new stresses and strain rates.



#15 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 07 September 2010 - 08:37 PM

Numbers,

The article does say "A geophysicist in the US has created a computer model...."  It did not say, "A geophysicist in the US has created a computer program...." 

Two--this is the press, who can be very soundbite -ish and vague.


I agree that science articles for the general population can be simplified and innacurate, that's why I'd like to you to show the part of the article you think is identifying which model is being talked about.

His computer program is used to produce 3d models, that's the whole point of the program. The model it produces depends on the data and values entered. You are claiming that people are using his runaway subduction idea instead of more commonly accepted geologic ideas. However nowhere in any of the articles you posted is there any hint that the model mentioned is his runaway subduction idea.

The first article says Baumgardner created a model but you haven't provided any reason to think it's the same model as the one you are saying it is. The second article doesn't give any indication which model or even which newscientist article is being referenced. The third article isn't even the right person or subject. In short you haven't provided anything to back up your assertion that people are using his runaway subduction theory as an explanation for pangeas breakup.

#16 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 08 September 2010 - 07:52 PM

I agree that science articles for the general population can be simplified and innacurate, that's why I'd like to you to show the part of the article you think is identifying which model is being talked about.

His computer program is used to produce 3d models, that's the whole point of the program.  The model it produces depends on the data and values entered.  You are claiming that people are using his runaway subduction idea instead of more commonly accepted geologic ideas.  However nowhere in any of the articles you posted is there any hint that the model mentioned is his runaway subduction idea.

The first article says Baumgardner created a model but you haven't provided any reason to think it's the same model as the one you are saying it is.  The second article doesn't give any indication which model or even which newscientist article is being referenced.  The third article isn't even the right person or subject.  In short you haven't provided anything to back up your assertion that people are using his runaway subduction theory as an explanation for pangeas breakup.

View Post


Wait, first you claimed I was mistaking his model for TERRA the program he wrote. Now you're questioning if the model is different. The third article is irrelevant. Did you read the excerpt of his online paper?

Considerable challenge is involved, however, because of the extreme gradients in material strength that arise [6, 8].  W.-S. Yang, a graduate student with whom I worked closely, focused much of his Ph.D. thesis research effort at the University of Illinois on finding a robust approach for dealing with such strong gradients in the framework of the finite element method and an iterative multigrid solver.  He showed what is known as a matrix dependent transfer multigrid approach allows one to treat such problems with a high degree of success.  Although his thesis dealt with applying this method to 3D spherical shell geometry, he subsequently developed a simplified 2D Cartesian version capable of much higher spatial resolution.  Details of this method together with some sample calculations are provided in a recent paper [27].

This new formulation of the multigrid solver represents a breakthrough in treating large local variations in rock strength and allows the mantle runaway process to be modeled to completion for the very first time.

In other words, the supporting numbers, which I understood you to say were unsupported, were already there (if you would read this). This new "multigrid solver" allowed the numbers to be expressed on a program.

Baumgarder's model scientifically splits Pangaea, supported by researched numbers, with help from his other PhD friend, W.S. Yang. THE ARTICLE CREDITS BAUMGARDER WITH A MODEL THAT ANSWERS QQUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SEPARATION OF PANGAEA.

Now, that's my final word. Doubters always doubt. Skeptics never believe anything. So I'm not wasting my time with this, repeating, repeating, repeating.

You did not give any indication of reading anything, or researching anything at all--only second guessing everything that is plainly before your eyes.

#17 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:25 PM

Wait, first you claimed I was mistaking his model for TERRA the program he wrote. Now you're questioning if the model is different.   The third article is irrelevant.  Did you read the excerpt of his online paper?


Terra is a program that produces 3d models, it was written in the late 80's/early 90's. The article you are quoting is from the early 90's and mentions a 3d model has been produced. That is why I am reasonably certain it is talking about the output of the Terra program. The models produced by the Terra program depend entirely on the values entered into the program. With values that are considered mainstream you can get a non-runaway model consistent with the mainstream view, with values considered unrealistic you can get his runaway subduction model.

His online paper is not relevant if you are trying to show that people other than him are using his runaway subduction model. You need to show a paper written by someone that's considered a 'gradualist' that is using his runaway subduction model.

In other words, the supporting numbers, which I understood you to say were unsupported, were already there (if you would read this).  This new "multigrid solver" allowed the numbers to be expressed on a program.

Baumgarder's model scientifically splits Pangaea, supported by researched numbers, with help from his other PhD friend, W.S. Yang.  THE ARTICLE CREDITS BAUMGARDER WITH A MODEL THAT ANSWERS QQUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SEPARATION OF PANGAEA.

Now, that's my final word.  Doubters always doubt.  Skeptics never believe anything.  So I'm not wasting my time with this, repeating, repeating, repeating.

You did not give any indication of reading anything, or researching anything at all--only second guessing everything that is plainly before your eyes.

View Post


The topic of this thread is "Gradualists Using Creationist Computer Model". Specifically you are claiming that mainstream geologists are using his runaway subduction model as an explanation for pangea's breakup. However, nothing you have posted shows that mainstream geologists are using his subduction model to explain how pangea broke up. There's absolutely no mention of anything that identifies what model is being used by gradualists in any of the articles you posted.

Yes, it says he created a model, it doesn't say what that model was. Given that it's possible to produce different models by using different starting values ask yourself, is it reasonable to think that Baumgardner has only created one model of plate movement in his career? He may have one he favors as an explanation for a global flood, but is it reasonable to think that this is the only model he's ever produced? You are basically saying, persion A came up with idea X therefore any mention of an idea of person A must be talking about idea X. But that reasoning is not valid, it is possible for a single person to produce multiple ideas, especially when all that's required to do so is to change the value of some variables in a computer program.

#18 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 - 06:22 AM

1. I find it difficult to believe that Baumgardner, a leader in the creationist movement, would do an old earth model, as you seem to suggest. Why would he do that?

2. I don't understand what you mean by the statement, 'No one is using his model.' Baumgardner made his model, and has displayed it on AiG, and in conferences. No 1. there are many YEC geologists who would use it, and the article itself CREDITS Baumgardner for his model.

I don't see why actualists could not use the catastrophe in an old earth model.

3. The breakup of Pangaea would have been initially catastrophic, whether you are old earth or not. I recently saw the Discovery channel's 'How the Earth was Made.' This was on Pangaea and particularly on the complementary coasts of Europe and North America--there are huge basalt cliffs--the same kind. It is believed even by gradualists--who again are ACTUALIST, and interpret catastrophe where they see the evidence--that the cliffs are evidence of the continents being joined. The fact of HUGE lava deposits, coupled with the continents splitting shows massive catastrophe at the splitting of Pangaea--whether you are old earth or YEC.

4. Research into journal papers would require possibly hours or days. Something I do not have time for. If I do get time, I will try to research this further.

I think tho, that it is quite obvious that modern geology acknowledges catastrophes being sprinkled throughout their earth history--and is evidenced in the rock record. The fact that Baumgardner's model answered questions about the breakup of Pangaea, and that generally heat was required--spells the fact that, though they do not accept his YEC views, they do accept the possibility of a huge catastrophe to be initially responsible for the breakup of Pangaea.

Again, on the YEC side of things. According to Baumgardner, a professional geophysicist of many years, with an engineering background also--the numbers for the YEC model are quite founded on research of clay silicates and their behavior under heat and stress. So they are by no means made up for "church members."

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 - 07:42 AM

1.  I find it difficult to believe that Baumgardner, a leader in the creationist movement, would do an old earth model, as you seem to suggest.  Why would he do that?

2.  I don't understand what you mean by the statement, 'No one is using his model.'  Baumgardner made his model, and has displayed it on AiG, and in conferences.  No 1.  there are many YEC geologists who would use it, and the article itself CREDITS Baumgardner for his model.

I don't see why actualists could not use  the catastrophe in an old earth model.

3.  The breakup of Pangaea would have been initially catastrophic, whether you are old earth or not.  I recently saw the Discovery channel's 'How the Earth was Made.' This was on Pangaea and particularly on the complementary coasts of Europe and North America--there are huge basalt cliffs--the same kind.  It is believed even by gradualists--who again are ACTUALIST, and interpret catastrophe where they see the evidence--that the cliffs are evidence of the continents being joined.  The fact of HUGE lava deposits, coupled with the continents splitting shows massive catastrophe at the splitting of Pangaea--whether you are old earth or YEC.

4.  Research into journal papers would require possibly hours or days.  Something I do not have time for.  If I do get time, I will try to research this further.

I think tho, that it is quite obvious that modern geology acknowledges catastrophes being sprinkled throughout their earth history--and is evidenced in the rock record.  The fact that Baumgardner's model answered questions about the breakup of Pangaea, and that generally heat was required--spells the fact that, though they do not accept his YEC views, they do accept the possibility of a huge catastrophe to be initially responsible for the breakup of Pangaea.

Again, on the YEC side of things.  According to Baumgardner, a professional geophysicist of many years, with an engineering background also--the numbers for the YEC model are quite founded on research of clay silicates and their behavior under heat and stress.  So they are by no means made up for "church members."

View Post

This is a P.S. for the above.

I do not expect that this will ever be a mianstream view. There are other hypotheses, such as self subduction, where the continents were pushed and 'ate' themselves to peices.

Old earthers are committed to an old earth interpretation. The main theme of the OP is to bring light to the fact that Baumgardner's model recieved attention as a possible scenario for the breakup. It is not another model--it is his model. The numbers are not made up, but are based on research.

The OP shows that creationists are professionally scientists, and that they are personally creationists--but have scientifically based evidence, whether old earthers acknowledge this or not, in my opinion.

If you go back into history, you will find that many Christian scientists accepted the old earth view, because they simply could not imagine a mechanism for the long held notion of a world wide deluge. Baumgardner has now given us one possibility based on realistic research of clay silicates--which the mantle and crust are made up of.

#20 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:33 AM

1.  I find it difficult to believe that Baumgardner, a leader in the creationist movement, would do an old earth model, as you seem to suggest.  Why would he do that?

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?

2.  I don't understand what you mean by the statement, 'No one is using his model.'  Baumgardner made his model, and has displayed it on AiG, and in conferences.  No 1.  there are many YEC geologists who would use it, and the article itself CREDITS Baumgardner for his model.

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.

I don't see why actualists could not use  the catastrophe in an old earth model.

3.  The breakup of Pangaea would have been initially catastrophic, whether you are old earth or not.  I recently saw the Discovery channel's 'How the Earth was Made.' This was on Pangaea and particularly on the complementary coasts of Europe and North America--there are huge basalt cliffs--the same kind.  It is believed even by gradualists--who again are ACTUALIST, and interpret catastrophe where they see the evidence--that the cliffs are evidence of the continents being joined.  The fact of HUGE lava deposits, coupled with the continents splitting shows massive catastrophe at the splitting of Pangaea--whether you are old earth or YEC.

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.

4.  Research into journal papers would require possibly hours or days.  Something I do not have time for.  If I do get time, I will try to research this further.

I think tho, that it is quite obvious that modern geology acknowledges catastrophes being sprinkled throughout their earth history--and is evidenced in the rock record.  The fact that Baumgardner's model answered questions about the breakup of Pangaea, and that generally heat was required--spells the fact that, though they do not accept his YEC views, they do accept the possibility of a huge catastrophe to be initially responsible for the breakup of Pangaea.

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?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users