John Baumgardner (B.S, M.S., Ph.D (UCLA)) is a geophysicist employed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His work involves detailed computer modeling of the structure and processes of the earth's interior, as well as a variety of other fluid dynamics phenomena. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: DR Baumgardner, some say that because of continental drift (the idea that the continents have broken apart and moved thousands of miles) one has to believe in 'millions of years'.
JB: Well, I believe there is now overwhelming evidence in favour of continental break-up and large-scale plate tectonic activity. The acceptance of these concepts is an amazing example of a scientific revolution, which occurred roughly between 1960 and 1970. However, this revolution did not go far enough, because the earth science community neglected and suppressed the evidences for catastrophism — large-scale, rapid change — throughout the geological record. So the timescale the uniformitarian scientists today are using is dramatically too long. The strong weight of evidence is that there was a massive catastrophe, corresponding to the Genesis Flood, which involved large and rapid continental movements. My conclusion is that the only mechanism capable of producing that scale of catastrophe and not wrecking the planet in the process had to be internal to the earth.
I am persuaded it involved rapid subduction (sinking) of the pre-Flood ocean floor, pulling the 'plates' apart at the beginning of the Flood, and was probably associated with the breaking up of the 'fountains of the great deep' described in Scripture.
A 1993 New Scientist article spoke highly of your 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonics.
JB: There are to my knowledge three other computer codes for modeling the earth's mantle and so on, in the world. These other three use a mathematical method not so well suited for the modern parallel supercomputers. The one I developed uses the finite element technique and performs very well on the new, very large supercomputers. So, many of my colleagues are recognizing it as the most capable code in the world.
Last year NASA funded this effort as one of the nine grand challenge projects for the next three years in their High Performance Computing and Communication initiative, and are supporting two post-doctoral researchers to collaborate with me to improve it, and apply it to study the earth.
This code is comparable to what are called general circulation models for the atmosphere and oceans, which are some of the largest codes in the world in terms of how much machine power they consume. It's got lots of physics in it to model the details of the mechanical behaviour of the silicate rock inside the earth. My present focus is to make the representation of the tectonic plates even more realistic. So the code is in an ongoing state of development, but it's come a long way in the last 15 years.
We understand you've shown that as these floating blocks of rock push down into the material below, things get hotter, so the 'slipperyness' increases and there's a runaway effect. The faster they sink the hotter they get, so the faster they can sink.
JB: Yes — rock that represents the ocean floor is colder, and therefore denser than the rock below it and so can sink into the earth's interior. And the properties of the rock inside the earth, especially at the high temperatures that exist there, make it possible for the colder rock from the earth's surface to peel away and sink in a runaway manner down through the mantle — very rapidly.
So this 'happens' on your computer model all by itself, from the laws of science — over a short time-scale, not millions of years?
JB: 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 (in a conveyor-belt-like fashion down into the earth, pulling things apart behind it) starts, 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.
You're part of a team of top creation scientists3 which is developing a model of catastrophic plate tectonics based on this mechanism, which believes the continents broke up (from a single landmass) during, not after the Flood as some have proposed.
JB: Yes. There is compelling evidence from the fossil-bearing sediments on the continents that the breakup occurred during the time these sediments were being deposited. We are convinced that this 'continental sprint' as it's been called, was during the time of the Flood, and part of the mechanism for it.
Baumgardner's BS and MS were in electrical engineering. And at UCLA, the Earth and Space sciences program doesn't require a "sound" foundation in geology or geophysics to get a specialist PhD. Baumgardner is pretty unsophisticated when it comes to geology. Cases in point:
(1) "The earth science community neglected and suppressed the evidences for catastrophism" Baumgardner makes a nonsensical argument. Geologists recognize the signature of catastrophic processes in the geologic record all the time - be it paleontology, sedimentary deposition, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. No good scientist ever suppresses evidence, or misrepresents the data.
(2) "The time scale the uniformitarian scientists use today is dramatically too long" Baumgardner is misrepresenting the data and the terminology. As a foundation of rational scientific thought, "... we accept the conclusion that nature's law are unchanging. This means we have no reason to doubt that the principles of physics and chemistry, the operation of gravity, and the essential nature of geologic processes are independent of time. During past earth history rocks must have been formed and some of them subsequently broken down physically or chemically in the same manner as now; we may be sure that rains fell, water flowed downhill, winds blew, and waves beat against the shore, just as they do today. This concept has come to be known as uniformitarianism, and holds that the present is the key to the past. Our ablity to analyze the rock record depends on the completeness and accuracy of these present-day processes and laws, and on the extent of the rock record available for us to study." (This quote comes from Page 2 of a 50-year old geology text.) Baumgardner, and other creation scientists choose to deny the fundamental nature of physical processes, such as radioactive decay constants, amino acid racemization, etc. Uniform time is the enemy of the creation scientist. For instance, potassium-argon isotope dating suggested there was a significant thermal event in the earth's early history, approximate 3.5 billion years ago (possibly related to the differentiation the the earth's core and mantle from the crust). If the earth has been around in more-or-less its present form for 3.5 billion years, that leaves a lot of time for the accumulation of "small scale" catastrophies and, by the way, evolutionary processes.
(3) "Rock that represents the ocean floor is colder, and therefore denser than the rock below it and so can sink into the earth's interior. And the properties of the rock inside the earth, especially at the high temperatures that exist there, make it possible for the colder rock from the earth's surface to peel away and sink in a runaway manner down through the mantle - very rapidly." This is pure and simple goobledegook. Baumgardener misunderstands or misrepresents fundamental rock mechanics - but of course, he is an electrical engineer filling a geophysical computer programming position. The density of any rock mass, be it a continent, the ocean floor, or the mantle, depends on it chemical make-up as well as its temperature. Continental crust, rich in Si and Al, is less dense that oceanic crust, which in rich in Mg and other heavy minerals. And so too, the upper mantle is much denser too, composed of rocks such as eclogites, peridotite, dunites, etc. Plate tectonic mechanisms have been argued since the 1950's. Density problems were one of the most compelling arguments against plate tectonics for years. Bumgardner's description of cold crustal rock sinking in a "runaway manner" into the upper mantle defies physics, logic, and measurement. Perhaps he should read a few petrologic papers on mineral phase equalibria. If Baumgardner reviewed solid evidence concerning rates of subduction on the continental margins, and rates of new crust forming at mid-ocean ridges and volcanic hot spots, he would clearly understand that the ocean basins have evolved over a the course of millions of years, and that several lines of evidence for dating the ocean basin support this model. Baumgardner's computer algorithms don't prove anything. The econazis have been using "sophisticate computer programs" to "prove" global warming too. Garbage in, garbage out.
(4) "Once this sinking of the pre-Flood ocean floor starts, it is not slow a slow process ... it's almost certain that it runs to completion and recycles all of the existing ocean floor in a few weeks or months." This is a breath-taking statement that explains why this guy has ZERO CREDIBILITY outside of creation science "research". He doesn't explain what happens to the continental crust during this process, nor does he suggest why the oceans must necessarily cover the continents. (In his and similar publications there is a vague suggestion that the suddenly exposed hot mantle vaporizes the oceans which then rain down endlessly - but this still does account for the ocean basin volume or lack thereof).
If you want to believe, literally, a biblical creation story, which probably had antecedants in Mesopotanian literature, be my guest. It is a matter of faith. Baumgardner and his cohorts distort science to fit their concepts. If he wants to recycle the ocean crust in a few weeks or months, instead of inventing outrageous and impossible processes while perverting science, why doesn't he just invoke an all-powerful diety to wave his hands and make it so? It has been said before, but it bears repeating, creation science is neither good creationism, nor good science.