Re: Mountains (and Baumgardner)

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 17:18:10 EDT

A few comments on Don's remarks. Perhaps if I sat down and checked all of
Baumgardners references I could say much more. I have always found that YEC
arguments simply crumble when you check their references and find
misquotation and misunderstanding. Hence my impatience with these type of
argum,ents. I will become more amenable when ICR guys repent of previous
falsities.

See below

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "Joel Moore" <redsoxfan1977@gmail.com>
Cc: <bpayne15@juno.com>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>;
<smburke@orion.naz.edu>; <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: Mountains (and Baumgardner)

>I have read IMPACT no. 381 March 2005, "Recent rapid uplift of today's
>mountains" by John Baumgardner. I have also had a quick look at a library
>copy of the book "The Origin of Mountains" by Ollier and Pain (OP). I now
>have the following questions for Bill Payne ( the order of listing does not
>indicate importance, and I assume that if Bill does not know some answers
>himself then he will check with Baumgardner).
> 1. Why has Baumgardner's essay just appeared, when the Ollier & Pain book
> was published in 2000?.
> 2. In view of the fact that OP advocate an old theory (based on isotasy)
> in place of a new theory (plate tectonics), what is all the fuss about?
MR This impresses YECs whoare desperate to disprove an old earth
> 3. Why is it such a big deal if some mountains have formed within the last
> five million years? That does not mean that all mountains have formed
> within five million years, and five million years is incompatible with
> YEC anyway.
MR All Baumgardner does is to create a hermeneuticc of suspiscion which is
enough to convince those who wosh to be convinced
> 4. Why does Baumgardner put emphasis on non-uniformitarianism? (Have we
> not advanced since Lyell's day? Why does the fact that some processes
> occur on a short time scale rule out other processes occuring on a very
> large time scale?)
MR YECS parody Uniformitarianism and do not grasp what Lyell actually said.
He allowed for minor catastrophes but most dont notice that. It's a straw
man argument.
> 5. Why does Baumgardner quote OP in support when OP say that plate
> tectonics is not important for mountain building whereas Baumgardner
> conludes that "the Flood involved an episode of extremely fast plate
> tectonics"?
MR Just the usual YEC flannel which sounds impressive

> Also, since we are talking about Baumgardner and Bill may have some
> contact with him, I raise another question.
> 6. Why did Baumgardner allow his name to appear in the list of authors of
> a paper, that was published in Science 280: 5360, 91-95, 1998, which in
> the abstract reads "Computer models of mantle convection ... reveal a
> 150-million-year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the
> mantle ...", when he had as early as 1986 published contrary findings in
> YEC technical literature?
MR That raises some questions of integrity.
>
> Don Nield
>
>>Bill,
>>
>>Not sure what you're trying to say in your email. First you quote
>>Baumgardner approvingly, then you say 5 My is outside the scope of the
>>YEC timetable. So are you saying Baumgardner is right about the earth
>>being 6000 years old, or do you think he's wrong?
>>
>>Baumgardner is right that some scientists think uplift in most of the
>>high mountain ranges (forgot the Sierra Nevada) has happened in last 5
>>million years. Other current thinking that he doesn't mention is that
>>there's also evidence that some of the mountains (Himalayas and Sierra
>>Nevada are the two ranges I know about) were uplifted more like 40 or
>>50 million years ago and then had another, significant uplift pulse in
>>the last 2-5 million years. Alternatively, much of the same evidence
>>can be interpreted to see that as global climate shifted into a more
>>severe icehouse, cold, glacially-dominated world, erosion increased
>>2-5 million years ago. This erosion increased the amount of sediment
>>deposited off-shore from the high mountain ranges. So this deposited
>>sediment has been read by some to mean the uplift increased, which
>>caused increased erosion rates, and read by others to mean a change in
>>climate that cause increased erosion rates.
>>
>>So back to your email and quotation of Baumgardner, I fail to see how
>>a debate over how to best read the geologic evidence in order to
>>ascertain what happened 2-5 million years ago gives Baumgardner reason
>>to believe in a young earth. Baumgardner misrepresents the
>>conversations between "theorists" (I'm not sure who he'd be talking
>>about here) and geomorphologists. I'm also not sure what Baumgardner
>>is referring to when he writes of the uniformitarian expection. Such
>>an expectation is not present in the minds of any geologists or earth
>>scientists that I've interacted with.
>>
>>-Joel
>>
>>
>>On 4/14/05, bpayne15@juno.com <bpayne15@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Michael,
>>>
>>>Apparently you didn't comprehend my initial post. Baumgardner (see
>>>http://icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-381.htm) quoted the authors of "The Origin of
>>>Mountains" (Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain) as saying that all the high
>>>mountain ranges of the world - including the Himalayas, Alps, Andes and
>>>Rockies, rose from plains within the last 5 million years. "In terms of
>>>this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several
>>>kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about
>>>five million years ago." Last time I checked 5 million years was a
>>>little beyond the scope of the YEC timetable.
>>>
>>>"This lack of agreement between field observation and uniformitarian
>>>expectation has led to conflict among specialists in the ranks of the
>>>larger earth science community. Theorists who address these matters,
>>>confident that their uniformitarian models are sound, tend to ignore the
>>>observational reports or reinterpret them as much as they can to match
>>>the predictions of their theories. Geomorphologists who focus on this
>>>topic, on the other hand, confident their observations correspond to
>>>reality, tend to dismiss the explanations of the theorists as hopelessly
>>>out of touch with the real world. However, because of the specialization
>>>that typifies most of science today, a sizable fraction of the earth
>>>science community is largely oblivious that the uplift history of today's
>>>mountains is even an issue at all."
>>>
>>>I suppose we could say you and Glenn have placed yourselves into the
>>>oblivious category. This thread began with Stephanie:
>>>
>>>********************
>>>
>>>teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...
>>>
>>>From: Stephanie Burke <smburke@orion.naz.edu>
>>>Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 13:49:28 EST
>>>
>>>I am interested in soliciting opinions from ASA membership regarding the
>>>teaching of evolution vs. creation science/creationism in American public
>>>schools. Some questions to consider...
>>>
>>>As "scientists teaching in the Christian perspective" how do you
>>>personally
>>>handle teaching evolution, which most view as being in direct opposition
>>>to
>>>the origins of life as outlined by the Bible?
>>>
>>>What SHOULD be taught in public schools? Creationism? Evolution? Or a
>>>combination of both?
>>>
>>>Is there a way to present creationism in a non-biased, non-partisan way
>>>which
>>>will not be misinterpreted by public school administration as forcing
>>>certain
>>>religious views upon students?
>>>
>>>Is it a violation of the First Amendment to teach creationism in
>>>governmentally funded public schools? Do you view this as an issue of the
>>>"separation of church and state?"
>>>
>>>Any feedback would be greatly appreciated... thanks...
>>>
>>>********************************
>>>
>>>It is my opinion that science should be taught unfettered by allergic
>>>reactions such as those displayed by you and Glenn. Neither of you
>>>comprehended what Baumgardner was saying as he quoted Ollier and Pain;
>>>both of you jumped Baumgardner for his YEC views rather than commenting
>>>on the work he referenced. Stephanie asked: "Is there a way to present
>>>creationism in a non-biased, non-partisan way which will not be
>>>misinterpreted by public school administration as forcing certain
>>>religious views upon students?" The two of you have shown that the
>>>answer to Stephanie's question is "NO." Scientific data which supports a
>>>model of earth history that lends aid and comfort to creationists is
>>>generally ignored or ridiculed.
>>>
>>>Michael, you said "You see Bill my criticisms of YEC are based on
>>>extensive knowledge." Not this time Michael; this time your criticisms
>>>were based upon willful ignorance.
>>>
>>>Since the paperback version of this book is ~$60 (hardback ~$150), then I
>>>doubt I'll be sending you a free copy.
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>-- "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Send me a free copy and I will read it. As it is I have too any YEC
>>>books,
>>>often annotated for misquotation etc etc.
>>>
>>>I have read most of the Impact series so I am not hopeful; that anything
>>>ICR
>>>produces will be any good.
>>>
>>>You see Bill my criticisms of YEC are based on extensive knowledge.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>>___________________________________________________________________
>>>Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
>>>Now includes pop-up blocker!
>>>Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 17 17:27:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 17:27:11 EDT