the floodwaters were still covering large portions of the continents (Clarey 2015d; 2021a; 2021b; Clarey et al. 2021). Collectively, they strongly dispute the claim that the Flood ended at the stratigraphic level of the K-Pg boundary (Clarey 2017; Clarey and Werner 2019a). First, the Whopper Sand (Fig. 25) (Clarey 2015d). Oil companies discovered the Whopper Sand in the Gulf of Mexico by drilling wells in water depths of 2100-3000 m and over 350 km offshore (Sweet and Blum 2011). The only reasonable explanation for this 300-580 m-thick sand bed, that covers much of the floor of the deep Gulf of Mexico, is a high-energy runoff of water—something that easily fits the progressive Flood model. This would coincide with the change in water direction described for Day 150+ of the Flood year. Initial high energy drainage rates, coinciding with a sudden drop in sea level at the onset of the Tejas Megasequence, best explains this deposit. The forces responsible provided a mechanism to transport the thick Whopper Sand into deep water. Second, the tremendous volume of Tejas sediment argues for a global event (Figs. 12, 14, 15) (Holt 1996). The Tejas accounts for the second most volume of any megasequence at 32.5% of the total (Phanerozoic) Flood sedimentation (Fig 14). Furthermore, the Tejas is the second most extensive deposit (second only to the Zuni Megasequence) (Fig. 15, Table 1). The tremendous thicknesses of Paleogene and Neogene sediments (Tejas) cannot be easily dismissed as the product of local catastrophes. The sediments and the fossils they contain are better explained by the receding water phase of the Flood as mountain ranges and plateaus were actively being uplifted later in the Flood year. Third, the thickest and most extensive coal seams are found globally in Tejas sediments. The Powder River Basin (PRB), USA coals, which are all within Paleogene system rock layers, contain the largest reserves of low-sulfur subbituminous coal in the world (Clarey et al. 2021). At least six or more coal beds in the PRB exceed 30 m in thickness, and some individual beds have been shown to extend for over 100 km in all directions. Some of these coal beds can exceed 60 m thick in places, such as the Big George coal layer. There are similarly 60 m thick coal seams in the Cenozoic in Germany also (Falk et al. 2022). These coal beds were derived from huge mats of plant and tree debris, primarily composed of angiosperms that likely lived at higher pre-Flood elevations. Other extensive Tejas coal beds are found offshore Asia that are best explained by the receding phase of the Flood (Fig. 26) (Clarey 2021a). Deep-water coals in the North Luconia region of the South China Sea, about 280 km off of Borneo, were found in a 1.5 km-thick section of Oligocene (Upper Paleogene) strata, over 3 km below sea level and in 1000 meters of water (Lunt 2019). Where did these coals originate? It is likely vast forests on the pre-Flood uplands were ripped from the land as the floodwaters crested on Day 150. These huge mats of vegetation would have been transported off the continents like the Whopper Sand and buried in the ocean as the Flood receded (Clarey 2015d). Today, the buried vegetation is found in the form of subsurface coal beds off the southeast Asian coast, the South China Sea, the Okhotsk Sea, and spread across the East Siberian Shelf, Laptev Shelf, and Russian Chukchi Shelf (Figure 26) (Gnibidenko and Khvedchuk 1982; Polachan et al. 1991; Drachev et al. 2009; Fujiwara 2012; Nguyen 2018; Hoang et al. 2020; Lunt 2020). It seems most likely that these Cenozoic (Tejas) coal beds were also produced by the Flood’s runoff processes. Local catastrophes have great difficulty explaining the massive extent, distance from shore, and depth and thicknesses of these offshore coals. Fourth, geophysical and seafloor data suggest that CPT continued right across the K-Pg boundary and up to the Pliocene, with no indication of a significant change in plate velocity. In other words, the mechanism (CPT) for the Flood was still in full swing during most of the Tejas megasequence. Runaway subduction and rapid seafloor spreading caused the creation of over one-third of the world’s ocean crust during the deposition of the Tejas megasequence (Paleogene and Neogene Systems). Figure 4 shows the seafloor in red, orange and yellow made during the Cenozoic, in order of increasing age. This is a tremendous amount of seafloor made after the K-Pg boundary. In addition, the huge earthquakes generated by this movement would have been devastating for any type of human civilization after the Flood if the Flood ended at the K-Pg. In fact, India did not collide with Asia until the Neogene, making the Himalayas in the process. How could animals and humans survive these types of catastrophic tectonic events if they were off the Ark living just a few countries away? In addition, our research efforts have identified other geological deposits that further support a high Cenozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary. Massive-scale, Tejas deposits, like the Ogallala Formation spread across the Great Plains, USA, are best explained by the receding phase of the Flood (Clarey 2018). The Paleogene and Neogene deposits that are up to 17 km thick in the South Caspian Basin are also best explained by the receding phase of the Flood (Clarey and Werner 2019b). And probably the best evidence that the Tejas megasequence represents the receding phase comes from studies of the rock columns across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, including Turkey (Fig. 27) (Clarey and Werner 2019a). Maps and stratigraphic columns near Turkey show that the deposition of undisputed marine rocks like carbonates and salt was uninterrupted and continuous from the Cretaceous (Zuni) upward through the entire Tejas section (Paleogene and Neogene), including the surface rocks of the Miocene and Pliocene (Neogene) (Figs. 28-31) (Clarey and Werner 2019a) These marine sediments are not trivial or local, but extend across Syria, Iraq, Turkey, much of Europe, and much of North Africa (Figs. 30, 31). The Flood could not have been drained from these areas and still deposit these marine rocks. These are clearly water deposits. The area of continuous carbonate deposition includes the countries of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq, completely surrounding and including the most likely Ark landing site. Furthermore, how could the Tower of Babel be built if the area was still underwater? This was the same logic used by Snelling (2010b) to place his Flood boundary in Israel above the K-Pg at the unconformity between the Eocene chalks and the Miocene, possibly in the Oligocene. He found continuous deposition of thick chalk beds and cherts across Israel from the Cretaceous upward through the Upper Eocene. The top surface being an unconformity where “arguably post-Flood isolated minor continental sediments were deposited in the Miocene” (Snelling 2010b, p. 304). And yet, these so-called Miocene ‘continental’ sediments contain layers of limestone, dolomite and salt, usually interpreted as marine (Snelling 2010b, p. 272). These ‘marine’ layers are found in both the Miocene and above in Pliocene sediments in northern Israel and the northern Negev, suggesting some marine influence continued throughout the Neogene. These findings match well with our findings that the upper Flood boundary is near the top of the Neogene (top Tejas). Suggestions that the Flood was completely over at the K-Pg boundary also fail to explain the lack of significant erosional evidence at the K-Pg boundary. Where are the major canyons and the planation surfaces like those that formed at the top of the Tejas (Clarey 2021b)? CLAREY AND WERNER Progressive Flood model 2023 ICC 435
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=