using the term ‘megasequence’ to describe rock-stratigraphic units traceable over vast areas bounded by unconformities (or their correlative conformities) (Davison 1995; McDonough et al. 2013; Reijers 2011; Thomson and Underhill 1999). Hereafter, the term ‘megasequences’ will be used to designate the six, Sloss-defined sequences. Although Sloss (1963) initially defined his megasequences across only the interior of North America, oil industry geologists quickly extended these megasequence boundaries to the offshore regions surrounding North America and to adjacent continents using well logs, seismic data and outcrops (Soares et al. 1978; Hubbard 1988) (Fig. 3). Using these data, 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 (xenoconformities, Halverson 2017) in oil well bores (using downhole well logs, biostratigraphic 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, very similar megasequence boundaries were identified and correlated to erosional events in North America, the Russian Platform, and Brazil (Soares et al. 1978) (Fig. 3). Although megasequences are the primary method used for this global stratigraphic study, we do acknowledge that there is validity to the global geologic column (Clarey and Werner 2018a). And we assume system names like Neogene and Cretaceous refer to specific intervals of deposition that occurred during the year-long Flood event. These names are also used in our paper to identify specific intervals within some of the megasequences. Acceptance of the validity of the geologic column does not mean we advocate for deep time nor acceptance of the geologic timescale so commonly used in conventional geology. B. Why Catastrophic Plate Tectonics as the Mechanism? When Henry Morris co-authored The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961) in the late 1950s, the theory of plate tectonics was not yet conceived. And Alfred Wegener’s continental drift was still scoffed at by most geologists. It was not until the late 1960s and into the 1970s before most conventional geologists began accepting plate tectonics. It ultimately revolutionized the science of geology. In 1994, creation geoscientists recognizing the evidence for runaway subduction (Baumgardner, 1986; 1994) proposed a new version of plate tectonics, known as catastrophic plate tectonics, where the tectonic plates moved several meters per second during the Flood year (Austin et al. 1994). And Henry’s son, John Morris, did incorporate catastrophic plate tectonics into his book The Global Flood (Morris 2012). In fact, John’s book was the follow-up book to The Genesis Flood that Henry wanted his son to write. In our progressive Flood model, we employ catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) as the primary mechanism for the Flood. Plate tectonics is not an evolutionary theory as it is based on real rock and geophysical data (Clarey 2016). But like all things in the evolutionary world, it is twisted to fit a deep time paradigm within the conventional geological community. Plate tectonics theory remains the best explanation for the systematic differences in volcanoes globally because it offers a scientific reason for their differences in magma chemistry (Clarey 2019a). Maps of current earthquake epicenters can be used to define the boundaries of most of the plates. It also explains the location of many of the world’s largest and deepest earthquakes. Further support for these plate boundaries is shown by the curvilinear chains of volcanoes found along the edge of the Pacific plate, associated with the Pacific Ocean’s Ring of Fire. In addition, many of the major mountain ranges of the world also follow the edges of active plate boundaries, such as the Andes and Himalayas. These long, linear chains of mountains Figure 3. Published correlation of megasequence boundaries from North America, the Russian Platform of Europe and South America (Sloss 1972; Soares et al. 1978). CLAREY AND WERNER Progressive Flood model 2023 ICC 415
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=