tory. The low %NLSSS values (column F, Table 1) suggest most of the Precambrian-Cambrian zone sediments were not deposited over a long period of time. And, if the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is at boundary 13 as Austin and Wise (1994) argue, low %NLSSS values in boundaries 8-12 suggest most of the pre-Flood sediments were not deposited over a long period of time. Thus, pre-Flood sediments were most probably deposited under catastrophic conditions, at rates well above those hypothesized by non-creationist geologists. This hypothesis can be tested by re-examining this zone with a NLSSG (genus-level) and/or NLSSF (family-level) paleontological continuity criterion. 6. Early Flood biozonation Creationists almost universally assign Cambrian sediments to the Flood. Yet, only 59 (5.2%) of 1133 species reported from a Cambrian stage are reported also in the following stage. None of the 71 species below boundary 18 are reported from the following stage, and none of the 34 below boundary 20, and none of 460 species below boundary 22. This suggests strong species-level biozonation at the stage level in the Cambrian. Wise (2003a) argued that the biostratigraphic zones of the Ediacaran and lowest Cambrian might be explained by fining upward deposition at the initiation of the Flood. The entire Cambrian is within the Sauk megasequence, and the Sauk is characterized by fining upward sedimentation. In future research we will be pursuing the possibility that the decreasing depositional energy of the Sauk megasequence may be responsible for the strong biozonation in Cambrian sediments. B. The Cenozoic zone (boundaries 94-114) 1. The Flood/post-Flood boundary In the creation model, we would expect the Flood/post-Flood boundary to be located in the upper part of the stratigraphic column. Thus, we might expect the Flood/post-Flood boundary to be located somewhere in the uppermost NLSSS biostratigraphic zone—i.e., the Cenozoic zone. And, just as NLSSS data could, in principle, be used to define the pre-Flood/Flood boundary, so also NLSSS data can be used to define the Flood/post-Flood boundary. As claimed above, once a species was picked up (and killed) by the Flood waters, that same species will continue to be deposited in successive Flood sediments until all members of that species have been buried or destroyed. Thus, a fossil species found in a particular Flood sediment at some geographic location might well be found also in the next Flood sediment at that same location. Thus, successive Flood layers should show high NLSSS values for species killed in the Flood. Although the Flood was designed to kill all terrestrial animals, some marine species may not have been killed by Flood waters. In fact the nutrient-rich waters of the Flood may have allowed some marine species to flourish, reproduce and multiply. Such Flood-compatible organisms with short enough generation times—especially bacteria, protists, and algae—may have even been able to adapt to local conditions in the course of the Flood. Given that these organisms might live at the same locality through the deposition of multiple sedimentary units of the Flood, they should also show high NLSSS values. Thus, we would expect high NLSSS values for organisms of all types throughout Flood sediments. We would also expect high NLSSS values for organisms of all types in post-Flood sediments. This is because organisms that lived in a particular area while one stratigraphic unit was being deposited are very likely to live in the same area while the next stratigraphic unit was being deposited in that same area. In contrast, we would not expect high NLSSS values across the Flood/ post-Flood boundary. If any marine species killed off by the Flood was buried in a particular location by Flood sediments, the Flood’s wholescale rearrangement of the marine realm would make it very unlikely that that species’ Flood survivors would come to inhabit the same geographic location. The only exceptions might be some of the species that actually thrived in Flood waters. Such species could potentially find an acceptable marine habitat before the end of the Flood and persist in that habitat following the Flood. For terrestrial organisms this is not possible, for the only terrestrial animals that survived the Flood did so on the ark. If all the Flood fossils for a particular terrestrial species were restricted to a small geographical area, it would be extremely unlikely that the members of the species coming out of the ark would establish their post-Flood habitation at that same spot. NLSSS values for terrestrial organisms might be high in Flood and post-Flood sediments, but should be zero across the Flood/post-Flood boundary. Consequently, we would expect high NLSSS values below and above the Flood/post-Flood boundary, but zero NLSSS values at the boundary (except for marine species that established themselves before the end of the Flood). The very high NLSSS values in the Cenozoic zone seem incompatible with a Flood/post-Flood boundary anywhere after boundary 95 (low in the Cenozoic). If the Flood/post-Flood boundary was located at any of these stage-stage boundaries, hundreds of species would be buried in the same geographic area on each side of that boundary. In a similar manner, Ross (2012) claimed that scores of terrestrial mammal genera (and families) on both sides of the Tertiary/Quaternary (T/Q) boundary in North America argue very persuasively against the Flood/post-Flood boundary at the T/Q boundary in North America. It seems too improbable for even one terrestrial mammal to leave the ark after the Flood, travel to a location half-way around the world, and settle in the very same area where members of its genus were buried in the Flood. For this to happen for scores of different mammal genera (and families) makes it impossible for the Flood/ post-Flood boundary in North America to be located at the Tertiary/ Quaternary boundary. There are two ways in which our analysis is even more definitive than Ross’. First, it is much less probable that a particular species will reinhabit the same geographic location than it is for any species of a given genus (or family) to reinhabit the same geographic location. Second, it is far less probable to relocate within 2 degrees longitude and latitude than it is to relocate somewhere on the same continent. Furthermore, our analysis broadens Ross’s conclusions from just the T/Q boundary (our boundary 111) to all biostratigraphic boundaries, and from just North America to the entire globe. Ross concluded that the Flood/post-Flood boundary cannot be at the T/Q boundary in North America. Our analysis concludes that the Flood/post-Flood boundary cannot be anywhere in the Neogene or upper Paleogene anywhere in the world. All this having been said, however, there is one sense in which Ross’s (2012) analysis was more effective than ours in identifying the Flood/post-Flood boundary. Ross only utilized terrestrial mammals, and for such organisms we would expect an unambiguous NLSSS value of zero at the Flood/ WISE and RICHARDSON Biostratigraphic continuity and earth history 2023 ICC 619
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=