The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

Clarey, T.L., and D.J. Werner. 2018. Global stratigraphy and the fossil record validate a Flood origin for the geologic column . In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism , ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 327–350. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. GLOBAL STRATIGRAPHY AND THE FOSSIL RECORD VALIDATE A FLOOD ORIGIN FOR THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN Timothy L. Clarey , Institute for Creation Research, 1806 Royal Lane, Dallas, TX 75229 USA, tclarey@icr.org Davis J. Werner , Institute for Creation Research, 1806 Royal Lane, Dallas, TX 75229 USA ABSTRACT The geologic column has been under the scrutiny of numerous creationists for many decades. Critics have claimed the column is intimately tied to the evolutionary worldview and deep time, and cannot be trusted or used by creation scientists. Other creation scientists have argued that the geologic column, although incomplete at most locations, can provide useful correlations of rocks and fossils across the globe. This paper examines the sedimentary rocks across three continents in an attempt to test the validity of the global geologic column. We attempted to assess the data primarily from a lithologic viewpoint, and as independent of the fossil data as possible. To accomplish this, we constructed a new data set of over 1500 local, stratigraphic columns across three continents, recording the detailed lithologic information and Sloss-type megasequence boundaries at each site. A detailed 3-D lithology model was created for each continent using the local columns. We also constructed maps of the basal lithology for each megasequence. Unique lithologic units, like salt and chert-rich layers were also tracked from column to column. Results show extensive lithologic units (i.e. blanket sandstones) covered portions of every continent and are correlative across vast regions and even continent to continent. The correlation of these stacked basal megasequence units, and other unique lithologies (i.e. salt and chert layers) within the megasequences, confirm the validity of the geologic column on a global scale. The observable pattern in the fossil record further confirms these findings. Indeed, a global Flood could produce globally extensive, stacked lithologic units on an intercontinental scale. Creationists should not be critical of the geologic column, but embrace it as evidence of a global Flood event. KEY WORDS correlation, geologic column, fossil record, stratigraphy, megasequences, ecological zonation, Sloss sequences, North America, South America, Africa Copyright 2018 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA www.creationicc.org 327 INTRODUCTION The geologic column has been criticized by many creationists over the past 50 years (Whitcomb and Morris 1961). A decade ago, an entire book was published by the Creation Research Society in an attempt to tackle this issue (Reed and Oard 2006). The nature of the geologic column has been questioned due to its obvious ties to evolutionary theory (Matthews 2011, 2016; Oard 2010; Woodmorappe 1999). Unfortunately, some of these critics still use arguments that have been invalidated in recent years such as so- called out-of-place fossils due to overthrusting. Clarey (2013) has demonstrated that the vast majority of overthrusts are in fact, real features, and have been drilled and imaged seismically for decades by oil company geologists. Clarey (2013) noted, however, that the necessary requirements for overthrusting can only be explained by the conditions produced by the global Flood. Recently, the use of sequences or megasequences to study Flood sedimentation has been criticized by some creation scientists (Froede et al . 2015). These creationists claim “The heart of the issue of using Sloss-based megasequences is their dependence on the geological timescale” (Froede et al . 2015, p. 21). Others, like Ross (2014) have championed the robustness of the global geologic column based on comparisons and coincidence of both paleontological and physical geologic data. He emphasized that “The ability to correlate rocks on the basis of fossils contained is not dependent on evolutionary reasoning. Rather it is based on sound recognition of similar patterns of fossils found in disparate locations” (emphasis in original, Ross 2013, p. 43). He argued that the type of rocks, and distinctive chemical signals in some of the rocks, also allow consistent correlations. It is not just the fossils that are compared from place to place (Ross 2014). Nonetheless, the general pattern of the fossils within the geologic column remains a mainstay of secular geologic education and practice (Fig. 1). And many creation geologists do support the notion of the geologic column, recognizing that many fossils do not reflect evolutionary patterns or time periods, but are indicative of the order of burial during a one-year, global Flood (Austin et al. 1994; Snelling 2009). This paper tests the validity of the global geologic column by examining rocks and depositional architecture across three continents. It uses the results of a compiled database of over 1500 stratigraphic columns to compare lithologic data across individual continents, and from continent to continent. S equences are defined as discrete packages of sedimentary rock bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom (deposited first) followed by shales and then limestone at the top (deposited last) (Sloss 1963). The corresponding size of the sedimentary particles is also thought to decrease upward in each package of rock, although this may not always be true. Basal sandstone layers are conventionally thought to represent the shallowest sea level or a highest energy environment, the shale—a little deeper water and less energetic environment, and the