Search This Blog

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Introducing Dr. John Baumgardner and Rapid Subduction of Tectonic Plates

For those of you who wondered at the lack of posting, I have been preparing for the wedding of one of my children.   Priorities!!!

Many times in the past I have stated that one of the mechanisms used to bring about the Noahic Flood was rapid tectonic plate subduction.   This post introduces Dr. Baumgardner and also note the two new links, the Global Flood and Creation Revolution, both found on the 2012 links list to the left of the articles.   A tip of the hat to Creation Revolution for pointing to the interview directly below.

Probing the earth’s deep places

Interview with plate tectonics1 expert Dr John Baumgardner

John Baumgardner

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.
[Creation magazine]: 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’.
[John Baumgardner:] 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 evidence 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.
[CM]: A 1993 New Scientist article spoke highly of your 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonics.2
[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.

Runaway subduction

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.

Earth internal structure
[CM]: 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.
[CM]: 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.

[CM]: 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.
[CM]: How did you become a Christian?
[JB]:Primarily through a verse by verse Bible study in the Gospel of John, in a college Sunday School class when I was 26 years old. It focused on the question of who is this Jesus Christ, and is he authentic or not? I had little church background prior to that point, but a lot of scientific training. I was well schooled in evolution, and it took several months before I started to realize the problems with this idea. Later, I was exposed to the evidence for a young earth and realized that the case for it was indeed solid.
[CM]: Why is six-day, recent creation important?
[JB]: I believe it’s a pivotal issue in regard to the reliability of God’s Word. It ultimately bears on the authenticity of Jesus, because Jesus put his stamp of authority on the writings of Moses, which taken at face value, indicate that the original earth was a perfect world, one which included man and woman, one in which there was no death. There were no carnivorous animals—all the animals and man were given the green plants to eat. To make sense of the history of the world as the Bible lays it out, does not allow for millions of years, but does require that there be a catastrophe which destroyed all the air-breathing land life except for that preserved in Noah’s Ark. So I believe there is no negotiation possible on this question.
[CM]: So did your current interest in plate tectonics, and continental drift, arise out of your Christian faith?
[JB]: Entirely. I recognized that this was probably one of the most burning Bible apologetics issues in my century, and as far as I could see there was no one working on it. I sensed the call of God actually. While giving lectures on creation/evolution at university, I realized one of the biggest deficiencies in the creationist position was this lack of an alternative geological model, in particular one accounting for large- scale tectonics. I was 34 when I went back to get a Ph.D. in a field that I previously had not had a single course in. I believe Christians with scientific talent need to be encouraged—just like they’re encouraged to become missionaries—to go and get the credentials and the training they need, and work at a professional level in these fields. God has opened incredible doors for me and others.
[CM]: We published a careful exposé of the claims made by a Ron Wyatt, and more recently by one Jonathan Gray, concerning an alleged ‘Ark site’—an almond-shaped formation in Eastern Turkey. In trying to attack our article, they often quote statements from you supporting this possibly being the Ark site. This was before your research at the site caused you to definitely conclude this could not be the Ark. They say you now oppose their claims for fear of losing your job.
[JB]: Ron’s claims here are just as bogus as his claims about that site. Far from hiding my creationism, I’m well known for it (especially through letters in the local newspaper) in this scientific community, which has more Ph.D.s per capita than any other place in the U.S. My employer and my colleagues know exactly where I stand.
[CM]: You gave a poster presentation on this ‘runaway rapid continental drift’ mechanism at the American Geophysical Union meeting in 1994, so at least some of the 6,000 scientists there would have seen it. What was the feedback?
[JB]: Many people were interested in the numerical techniques I used for such a calculation, because it’s a significant computational challenge. Almost no one seemed to appreciate the implications of it. Actually, this concept of ‘runaway subduction’ [rapid sinking of the ‘plates’ as described earlier] has been in the literature for over 30 years. It was picked up in the geophysical community in the early 1970s, but for some reason the interest disappeared. People in my field are not ignorant of this possibility, it’s just not seriously explored.
[CM]: Why do you think that is?
[JB]: Well, there’s no real motivation to pursue it. Some toyed with the idea that such runaway effects might have been involved in recent volcanism in the south- western US But in their framework, they’re not really looking for worldwide effects.
[CM]: So their framework of thinking is really like blinkers, preventing a full consideration of all the relevant evidence?
[JB]: That’s correct, exactly. The same kind of uniformitarian ‘glasses’ prevent them from giving much attention to the evidence for catastrophism in the sedimentary record. Such basic philosophical biases profoundly affect the way science approaches problems and weighs the evidence. So it’s not simply ‘facts speaking for themselves’—the framework one starts from can and does profoundly affect the conclusions that are drawn.
[CM]: Dr Baumgardner, thank you very much.

Photo by Russell Humphreys


Seafloor ‘zebra-stripes’ don’t mean slow and gradual.

The mid-ocean ‘ridges’ are undersea mountain chains with volcanoes at the boundary between two ‘plates’ of the earth’s outer shell. It is believed that here, molten magma from below can well up as the plates move apart, making new oceanic crust—a process called ‘seafloor spreading’. As the new crust cools down, it ‘freezes’ within it the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time.

When instruments measuring magnetism are towed (on the ocean surface) across these ridges, they detect bands of alternating magnetic direction, like a ‘zebra-stripe’ pattern, with each side of the ridge mirroring the other. This is interpreted to mean that as new seafloor had gradually formed on each side of the ridge, the earth’s magnetism had slowly reversed many times, over millions of years. However, DR Baumgardner says this pattern does not mean the spreading was slow. He says,
‘From an estimate of the viscosity of the outer core, where the currents associated with the earth’s magnetism exist, there is no reason why the magnetic field can’t reverse rapidly. Moreover, there is field evidence that it has reversed rapidly, within weeks.4

In addition, drilling the sea floor has shown that, regardless of the overall direction of the magnetism detected from the surface, the magnetic direction within a drill core frequently varies widely.5 This is less consistent with slow spreading than with a rapid welling up of new magma during a period of rapid reversals; the magma in contact with the surface will reflect the direction at that time, but by the time the deeper magma cools a few weeks later, the direction has switched again—and so on for deeper levels.

Further reading

References and Notes

  1. 1. Plate tectonics: The concept that the earth’s outer shell consists of separate, huge ‘plates’ on which the continents ride, capable of movement relative to one another. Return to text.
  2. 2. ‘How a supercontinent went to pieces’, New Scientist, January 16, 1993, p. 19. Return to text.
  3. 3. In alphabetical order: Drs Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling , Larry Vardiman, Kurt Wise—sometimes affectionately known as the ‘Gang of Six’. Note that the chapter on continental drift in CSF’s The Answers Book (one of the co-authors of which is a member of this team) is being modified, in the light of many new findings, for future editions. Return to text.
  4. 4. R.S. Coe, M. Prevot and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374:687–692, April 20, 1995. The finding (by highly respected experts in paleo-magnetism) of ‘astonishing’ rates of reversal, has now been duplicated more than once. Return to text.
  5. 5. J.M. Hall and P.T. Robinson, ‘Deep crustal drilling in the North Atlantic Ocean’, Science 204:573–586, 1980. Return to text.

Dr, Baumgardner posted a site that describes in both technical and laymen's terms the basis for the paper he presented at the 2003 International Conference on Creationism

In the early days of approaching Rapid Plate Subduction as one of the mechanisms that drove the Noahic Flood, there was debate about the subject among Creation Scientists.   The article below will bring you up to date on the competing viewpoints at that time and future posts will follow on the subject.   Answers in Genesis: 

We publish here six articles that address catastrophic plate tectonics as a framework for Biblical Earth history. The topic of ‘continental drift’ is one of the most-asked questions on Genesis and the Creation/evolution issue. ‘Have the continents really moved apart? How could this relate to the Bible’s account of history? Could it have had something to do with the Flood?’1

In 1994,2 six creationist scientists answered ‘Yes’ to these questions. They agreed that the continents really have moved apart during the Flood of Noah. And they moved quickly over months, not slowly over millions of years. The details of their answer were presented in papers at the International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.3–5 This catastrophic-plate-tectonics model is regarded by many as the most highly developed creationist model of the global Flood.

However, a number of creationist geologists are sceptical of the assumptions of plate tectonics and have published papers and monographs expressing their concerns.6 In view of the significance of geology to a Biblical understanding of Earth history, we believe it is important that these differences be explored in a forum.

This forum, therefore, focuses on the three papers presented at the 1994 International Conference on Creationism. The participants are John Baumgardner and Michael Oard, who represent the ‘for’ and ‘against’ position respectively. Both have published extensively on Biblical geology. Each has drawn on the advice of others with the aim of making their contribution representative of the different views. Those who assisted are acknowledged at the end of the last contribution of each author.

The forum proceeded in three stages. First, each author prepared a paper setting out his case, either ‘for’ or ‘against’. The first submissions were exchanged and then each author prepared a response. The second submissions were exchanged and each author then prepared his third and final submission.

We publish all the articles in this issue of TJ. Although the ‘for’ position is presented first, it is important to realise that the ‘for’ and ‘against’ positions for each of the first, second and third submissions were prepared simultaneously.

Over the years, creationists have developed a number of models of the worldwide Flood. Secular geologists also have developed different models for how they think geological history took place. Forty years ago, hardly any geologists believed in continental drift. Now, almost all geologists do. Geology is important because all models of Earth history depend upon it.

The fact that creationist scientists have different views on this topic should be seen as positive. After all, the Earth is immense and our data are very limited in space and time. Christians should not be surprised if some questions are still open. The important thing is that the issues are being worked through. This is science at its best—exploring different options with an open mind. That is why we always stress that Christians should never put their faith in one particular scientific model, whether it is geological, biological or astronomical. Models change as ideas change and as people come and go. Rather, we put our faith in the infallible Word of God, the Bible, which does not change because it is true.

We hope you enjoy the forum and that it helps you appreciate something of the mammoth job of reconstructing a geological history of the Earth. That task is difficult, even when we have the broad parameters clearly specified in the Bible—parameters such as the Flood’s magnitude, its duration and its extent.

Forum contents:

‘For’ ‘Against’
First contribution Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood
by John R. Baumgardner
Is catastrophic plate tectonics part of Earth history?
by Michael J. Oard
Rebuttal Dealing carefully with the data
by John R. Baumgardner
Does the catastrophic plate tectonics model assume too much uniformitarianism?
by Michael J. Oard
Conclusion A constructive quest for truth
by John R. Baumgardner
Dealing carefully with the data
by Michael J. Oard


  1. Batten, D. (Ed.), Ham, K., Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C., Chapter 11, What about continental drift? The Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, Australia, p. 147, 1999. Return to text.
  2. Although significant papers on catastrophic plate tectonics were presented in 1994, the idea was first presented by John Baumgardner at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He added details to the concept at the 1990 ICC. Return to text.
  3. Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R., Humphreys, D.R., Snelling, A.A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K.P., Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global Flood model of Earth history; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 609–621, 1994. Return to text.
  4. Baumgardner, J.R., Computer modelling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, RE (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 49–62, 1994. Return to text.
  5. Baumgardner, J.R., Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, RE (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 63–75, 1994. Return to text.
  6. For example, Reed, J.K. (Ed.), Plate Tectonics: A Different View, Creation Research Society Monograph 10, St Joseph, pp. 11–23, 2000. Many other such references are cited in the forum. Return to text.

Young Earth Creation Scientists are doing important work in many fields, often while also employed in secular scientific pursuits, as is Dr. Baumgardner.   Hopefully this post gives you an opportunity to see firsthand how peer review, discussion, testing, computer modeling and all modern elements of science are part and parcel to the Creation Science movement.   It is unfortunate that these men must break away from secular science, but the religion of Naturalism has had something of a Dark Ages effect upon science.   In almost every situation, a failure to bend the knee to Naturalism makes scientists who will not adhere to that religious belief persona non grata in secular circles.  We call this so-called science "Scientism."

Why is Scientism so bad for society?  Because of the millions of man hours and billions of dollars spent looking for some kind of evidence for evolution while that time could be spent helping cure diseases and providing new technology and help for the Third World population as well as mankind in general.  Secular Scientism is more interested in finding water on Mars than finding ways to provide electricity and food and water to help people help themselves.


drivebycommenter said...

"Young Earth Creation Scientists are doing important work in many fields, often while also employed in secular scientific pursuits, as is Dr. Baumgardner. [...] Why is Scientism so bad for society? Because of the millions of man hours and billions of dollars spent looking for some kind of evidence for evolution while that time could be spent helping cure diseases and providing new technology and help for the Third World population as well as mankind in general."

Would you mind listing the YEC scientists that are helping to cure diseases and providing new technology and help for the Third World population as well as mankind in general? Seriously. It seems like the YEC folks are mostly preoccupied with trying to match actual evidence vs. scripture in an attempt to

And while you're at it, please provide a semblance of evidence of the alleged "billions of dollars" spent looking for "some kind of evidence for evolution". The scientific consensus is that the mere existence of evolution was settled long ago, and there is only some debate still going on about a few specific details that don't significantly impact the overall framework. Nobody's actually still trying to "prove evolution". That's just your little echo chamber talkin'.

drivebycommenter said...

Sorry, I forgot to finish that sentence:

"It seems like the YEC folks are mostly preoccupied with trying to match actual evidence vs. scripture in an attempt to"


"It seems like the YEC folks are mostly preoccupied with trying to match actual evidence vs. scripture in an attempt to prop up their worldview, in contrast to mainstream science, which accommodates all faiths on the basis of the scientific method."

radar said...

Yes, all sorts of money is being sunk into finding a way to get around the Law of Biogenesis. The primary mission of the Mars Rovers seems to be to look for signs of life, as if that would fix the problems of evolution. How about SETI? How about all the people trying to gather ape bones and prove they are predecessors to mankind? Of course there are billions of dollars going to research, trying to prove evolution within the inner walls of science, while on the outside scientists confidently proclaim it is established proof. Too bad the evidence is missing, eh?

Darwinism is like a pyramid investment scheme. People get fooled into investing their beliefs, not realizing it is a giant con.

The idea that mainstream science is using the scientific method is also a joke. Naturalism is the religion/worldview that secular science has imposed on the scientific method, making both it and what they proclaim as truth to be what I call Scientism. Science has abandoned the search for truth as mission one, putting the need to prop up Naturalism first at the expense of everything else.

drivebycommenter said...

Not one of the projects you've named aims to "prove evolution". For example, you said yourself, the "mission of the Mars Rovers seems to be to look for signs of life, as if that would fix the problems of evolution". The two are obviously not related.

That evolution took place is well-established science; the question is how, and even that is covered very well.

About mainstream science and the scientific method. Pray tell, how would the scientific method work if one, say, tried to include the supernatural?

radar said...


You apparently are not a regular reader or you would not ask. However, the scientific method would work as it was formulated by Bacon and used by scientists until it was artificially inserted with religion. One would test and observe the evidence and processes and investigate historical evidence and any other relevant information and then come up with a hypothesis.

When it comes to origins, forensics are involved and also there is no possibility of entering a time machine, so logic is applied. Since organisms are obviously designed, any scientist who is not inserting a Naturalist barricade to knowledge would agree that a Designer would be required. All the great scientists of the past with very few exceptions believed that God created the Universe and therefore expected to be able to investigate processes and understand their operations.

Naturalism keeps science from acknowledging God and therefore the hilarity of nothing being responsible for the creation of everything is asserted. This preposterous idea is behind the Big Bang hypotheses, which do not hold up under scrutiny and abiogenesis studies aka "chemical evolution" which are also preposterous.

I challenged the world of Darwinists to give me a natural source for information and they finally gave up and admitted there was no such source. I challenged them to provide to me the test results that overturned the Law of Biogenesis and again they could not answer.

I will shortly go after them again on the Laws of Thermodynamics and I expect they will fail there as well. Darwinism is not science, it is religion. Naturalism is a religion. It should not be imposed upon science. Science should be free to consider all possibilities and choose the most logical one based on the evidence. That is what I do.

Anonymous said...

"I challenged the world of Darwinists to give me a natural source for information and they finally gave up and admitted there was no such source."

Looking back at the comments, all I see there is one highly sarcastic comment pretending you're right on this issue. That's your "admission"? Really?

So you don't have a sarcasm filter at all?

radar said...

Well, hey, if you have a natural source for information go ahead and give it to me.

Otherwise years of failures to do so really make my point anyway. But finally one guy did admit there was no source. He wanted me to address some peripheral issues but I would not get off of the subject until a Darwinist gave me an answer. He answered, I addressed the issues.

But you won't give me a natural source for information because you cannot. So sarcasm is drifting into the void, having missed the target.

Frank_Brunner said...

I'm confused by your sudden change of subject in this discussion.

Are you conceding that there is no such admission then, other than the obviously sarcastic one that was given to you?

If so, I'd agree with you and say you've made the right choice.

radar said...


You are joking, yes? Because over the years no Darwinist has ever provided a natural source for information and when one finally admitted it, I felt like I could put down my lantern because I had encountered an honest Darwinist.

Frank_Brunner said...

Joking about what? You said that Darwinists had made a certain admission. All I could find was the obviously sarcastic one that "lava" posted. Was that it?

Really not much of an "admission". But this is the one you were talking about? The sarcastic one was the "honest" one?

You were better off changing the subject after all.

radar said...

Well, Frank, you don't seem to have an answer. Lava was being honest. I don't really care about his motivation.

You certainly don't have a natural source for information in your pocket or you would have provided it by now. So what exactly is the point of commenting at all? You have nothing to say.

Frank_Brunner said...

"Lava was being honest. I don't really care about his motivation."

So why do you think his motivation was to be honest? Because you thought he was agreeing with you?

"You certainly don't have a natural source for information in your pocket or you would have provided it by now."

I had a look through some past comments on your blog. You've been given the answer before. Pretty often actually. You just don't seem to understand it.

"So what exactly is the point of commenting at all? You have nothing to say."

What I had to say was pretty obvious. You were lying about having this supposed "admission" in your pocket. And you're not man enough to admit it apparently.

radar said...

Frank Brunner, that is pathetic. You make an ad hominem attack on me and I can only guess as to why you do it, but let me try:

1) You actually DON'T know of a natural source for information because none of the Darwinist bloggers have provided one. So you are a liar or simply brainwashed.

2) You maybe have a couple of Darwinist buddies you want to impress by insulting me. I don't know you and I don't care.

3) You are unhappy with Lava and are trying to spin his admission. I can probably tell you exactly what happened. Lava wanted me to answer some questions posed by another commenter that were off-topic and I had refused to go down any rabbit trails until a Darwinist either gave me a natural source for information or admitted that there is no such thing. Lava admitted it and I answered the rabbit trail questions. Did answering those questions suddenly give the questioner a magic answer to my original question? No, he just quit asking. Maybe he thought I couldn't answer?

Put up or shut up. You say I have been given a natural source for information "many times?" Then it should be easy for you to repeat it, right?

radar said...

Also, I have noticed that Darwinist commenters make comments that have nothing to do with the specific blog post because apparently they want to sneak a comment in on another subject and then, if I do not answer, pretend to win the point? This particular post was not focused on information but rather providing information on subduction of tectonic plates in order to prepare the readers for a later post on the overview of evidences surrounding the Flood. Rapid plate subduction is gaining acceptance and does have evidence on its side in that there are colder portions of the magma under the surface where those subducted plates would have gone.

If you can keep to the subject at hand you will be more logical and honest. Thank you.