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

extended these sequence boundaries to the offshore regions surrounding NorthAmerica and to adjacent continents (Sloss 1972; Soares et al. 1978; Hubbard 1988) (Fig. 3). Oil industry geologists have tracked the megasequence boundaries from the craton to the ocean shelves on the basis of distinctive seismic reflection patterns (many due to abrupt truncations) as well as lithologic changes in oil well bores (using downhole well logs, biostratigraphy data and cores) (Hubbard 1988; Van Wagoner et al. 1990). These same Sloss-megasequence boundaries were correlated to at least three other continents based on seismic data and oil well drilling results (Sloss 1972; Soares et al. 1978; Hubbard 1988; Van Wagoner et al. 1990). In fact, nearly identical megasequence boundaries were identified and aligned to global tectonic events in North America, the Russian Platform, Brazil, and Africa (Soares et al . 1978) (Fig. 3). The goal of this paper is to examine the validity of the global geologic column from a young earth creationist context. In other words, can much of the geologic column be produced and explained by the activity of the Flood? A second goal is to follow up on the work of Davison (1995) and “describe the depositional history of the Genesis Flood without being dependent on the evolutionary geologic timescale” (Davison 1995, p. 223). To accomplish these goals, we reconstructed the stratigraphic architecture, megasequence by megasequence, across three continents using newly-compiled stratigraphic columns. Essentially, we examined the sedimentary “rocks in place” at over 1500 sites across three continents. METHODS 1. Three-dimensional lithology models Stratigraphic columns were compiled from published outcrop data, oil well boreholes, cores, cross-sections and/or seismic data tied to boreholes. Lithologic and stratigraphic interval data (megasequence boundaries) were input into a database, allowing the creation of a three-dimensional lithologic model for each of the three continents in this study. These models also allow the correlation of rock types within individual megasequences and along their bounding surfaces. Our database consisted of selected COSUNA (Correlation of Stratigraphic Units of North America) (Childs 1985; Salvador 1985) stratigraphic columns across the United States, stratigraphic data from the Geological Atlas of Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (Mossop and Shetsen 1994), and numerous well logs and hundreds of other available online sources. Using these data, we constructed 710 stratigraphic columns across North America, 429 across Africa, and 405 across South and Central America from the pre-Pleistocene, meter-by-meter, down to local basement. We input detailed lithologic data, megasequence boundaries and latitude and longitude coordinates into RockWorks 17, a commercial software program for geologic data, available from RockWare, Inc. Golden, CO, USA. Fig. 4 is an example stratigraphic column from the Michigan Basin, showing the 16 types of lithology that were used for classification and the sequences. Depths shown in all diagrams are in meters. Each column recorded the complete record of sedimentary rocks at that location from surface to crystalline basement along with the corresponding Sloss megasequence boundaries (1963). Any erosional “gaps” in the COSUNA columns were collapsed so that only the rocks present at each location were used in the study. Megasequences were used in this study because they reflect major shifts in depositional patterns as the seas transgressed and subsequently regressed off the continents. Many of these shifts left Clarey and Werner ◀ A Flood origin for the geological column ▶ 2018 ICC 330 Figure 4. Example stratigraphic column from the Michigan Basin illustrating the16 types of lithology that were used for classification and the six megasequences that were used in this study. Depth is in meters. © 2017 Institute for Creation Research. Used by permission.