Ignorance, pt. 2
"Dr." Patton's other argument against an old earth involved sedimentation rates. The idea he was attacking was that sediment is deposited so slowly that the earth must be billions of years old in order to have huge sedimentary packets such as seen in the cross section of the Grand Canyon. He showed pictures of fossils and said that clearly these critters had to have been buried quickly in order to be so well preserved.
First of all, he has contorted the public's view of fossils. He showed pictures of Konservat Lagerstaaten, which are exceptionally well-preserved fossils. The conditions necessary for soft tissue preservation include rapid burial (where he is correct), and other factors such as anoxic conditions and lack of bioturbation. However, these fossils are the exception, not the norm. Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of beds that have no fossils whatsoever; does that mean that nothing lived there during that depositional event?
Now, I bring you the question/answer round. My buddy Brian pointed out the fossil discrepancy I described above. Not only did he not have a good answer, he didn't really address the issue. He also stated that most fossils were, in fact, Konservat Lagerstaaten. (FYI: That's wrong.)
Matt was next to raise his point. He said, if the rock is forming so quickly, why is half of North America covered with up to 200 meters of unconsolidated sediment (as in, not a rock yet) that has no organic or biotic material in it whatsoever? Patton responded by saying it must have been a catastrophic event or rapid sedimentation in order for no life to be found in it. If it was deposited slowly, he said, you would find plant matter growing in it. Matt tried to protest by saying that if it were catastrophic, you would find plenty of organic material or fossils at the base of the section, and Patton protested right back.
I spoke next. I said, "Sir, you're saying that the only way to not get biotic material in the sediment is to bury it quickly. At the same time you're saying the only way to actually get preservation is to bury it quickly. You're contradicting yourself; you can't have it both ways." Patton, of course, said he couldn't see how it was a contradiction.
At this point, Brian and Matt stormed out of the auditorium. The rest of us followed a few minutes later, after Patton cut the Q&A session short. We found the boys outside arguing with the people from the church who had sponsored Patton's lectures. They accused Bing and Matt of being drunk and on drugs. All they asked is for us to listen to what Patton had to say (which we did), but they wouldn't do us the courtesy of listening to our side in return.
Needless to say, we are angry, hurt, and frustrated.
More after tonight's talk: Destroying the Geologic Column, and an Alternate Theory.
Ugh.
First of all, he has contorted the public's view of fossils. He showed pictures of Konservat Lagerstaaten, which are exceptionally well-preserved fossils. The conditions necessary for soft tissue preservation include rapid burial (where he is correct), and other factors such as anoxic conditions and lack of bioturbation. However, these fossils are the exception, not the norm. Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of beds that have no fossils whatsoever; does that mean that nothing lived there during that depositional event?
Now, I bring you the question/answer round. My buddy Brian pointed out the fossil discrepancy I described above. Not only did he not have a good answer, he didn't really address the issue. He also stated that most fossils were, in fact, Konservat Lagerstaaten. (FYI: That's wrong.)
Matt was next to raise his point. He said, if the rock is forming so quickly, why is half of North America covered with up to 200 meters of unconsolidated sediment (as in, not a rock yet) that has no organic or biotic material in it whatsoever? Patton responded by saying it must have been a catastrophic event or rapid sedimentation in order for no life to be found in it. If it was deposited slowly, he said, you would find plant matter growing in it. Matt tried to protest by saying that if it were catastrophic, you would find plenty of organic material or fossils at the base of the section, and Patton protested right back.
I spoke next. I said, "Sir, you're saying that the only way to not get biotic material in the sediment is to bury it quickly. At the same time you're saying the only way to actually get preservation is to bury it quickly. You're contradicting yourself; you can't have it both ways." Patton, of course, said he couldn't see how it was a contradiction.
At this point, Brian and Matt stormed out of the auditorium. The rest of us followed a few minutes later, after Patton cut the Q&A session short. We found the boys outside arguing with the people from the church who had sponsored Patton's lectures. They accused Bing and Matt of being drunk and on drugs. All they asked is for us to listen to what Patton had to say (which we did), but they wouldn't do us the courtesy of listening to our side in return.
Needless to say, we are angry, hurt, and frustrated.
More after tonight's talk: Destroying the Geologic Column, and an Alternate Theory.
Ugh.