ble 1). Although the Cretaceous/Paleogene ‘extinction’ event is close to the end of the Zuni megasequence, the largest ‘extinction’ event (that of the Permo-Triassic) has no special relation to the Absaroka megasequence in which it is found. The lack of correlation between megasequences and biostratigraphy is a curious phenomenon. It would seem that the sequence of burial of organisms was not at all affected by the changing energy levels of Flood waters. Whatever caused the remarkable boosts in energy required to explain these megasequences, did not affect the order of burial of organisms. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Distinct NLSSS patterns and amplitudes suggest the earth’s stratigraphic column can be divided into five NLSSS biostratigraphic zones. The first zone includes the Precambrian and Cambrian, the second the Ordovician through all but the last stage of the Mississippian, the third the last stage of the Mississippian through the Permian, the fourth the Mesozoic and lowermost stage of the Cenozoic, and the fifth the Cenozoic above its lowest stage. The low stratigraphic position and the zero NLSSS values strongly suggest the pre-Flood/Flood boundary lies in the upper part of the first (Precambrian-Cambrian) zone. The high stratigraphic position and the very high NLSSS values strongly suggest the Flood/post-Flood boundary lies in the lower part of the fifth (Cenozoic) zone. This, in turn, suggests that the second, third, and fourth zones (Ordovician through Cretaceous) are Flood sediments. When the second and fourth zones are compared, the second zone’s lower stratigraphic position, similar NLSSS pattern, and lower amplitude NLSSS values suggest that the Ordovician through Mississippian sediments were deposited during the Flood’s early period of marine burial. The fourth zone was then deposited as the Flood was burying terrestrial organisms. This, in turn, suggests that the Pennsylvanian-Permian zone was deposited around the time that the Flood began to transgress onto the land. Dating the initial transgression to the Pennsylvanian-Permian offers a reasonable source for the world’s Permo-Triassic sands (pre-Flood coastal sands) and a reasonable explanation for the Carboniferous coals (beaching and breakup of the pre-Flood floating forest). All this means that to a first-order approximation, the five NLSSS biostratigraphic zones correspond to pre-Flood, early (‘marine’) Flood, initial land transgression, late (‘terrestrial’) Flood, and post-Flood, respectively. More specifically on the position of the pre-Flood/Flood boundary, NLSSS values suggest a boundary somewhere between the Rhyacian/Orosirian boundary and the Cambrian/Ordovician boundary. The range of candidate boundaries indicated by NLSSS values includes the traditional Precambrian/Cambrian boundary popular among creationists from at least the time of Clark (1946). It also includes what can be considered the Tonian/Cryogenian refinement of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary suggested by Austin and Wise (1994). More specifically on the position of the Flood/postFlood boundary, NLSSS values argue very strongly against a boundary in the upper Cenozoic. As powerful as Ross’s (2012) criterion was against an upper Cenozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary in North America, this paper’s refinement of that criterion is even more definitive. For any potential boundary in the middle or upper Cenozoic, more than one hundred species of organisms—including land animals—would have to return to the same state- or province-sized area where that species was buried in Flood sediments. The Flood/ post-Flood boundary is most definitely not in the Upper Cenozoic. A Danian/Selandian boundary is suggested by global NLSSS data, and strongly confirmed by marine versus terrestrial NLSSS data in North America. Beyond its use in distinguishing pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood sediments, NLSSS research provides insights into processes from each portion of earth history. In the Precambrian-Cambrian zone, for example, NLSSS data suggests a variety of different processes and/or process rates were involved in pre-Flood and possibly earliest Flood sedimentation. Low NLSSS values in the Precambrian-Cambrian zone also suggest that many of the Precambrian fossils were buried under catastrophic conditions—perhaps pointing to catastrophism during the Creation Week. Furthermore, if the pre-Flood/ Flood boundary is anywhere near the Precambrian boundary, as is popularly believed, the many zero NLSSS values in the Cambrian suggests there is strong biozonation in the earliest Flood sediments. Concerning biostratigraphy in general, the global biostratigraphic column seems to be real. However, sub-erathem biostratigraphic units show no relationship to known measures of biostratigraphic continuity. This suggests that index fossils and sub-erathem biostratigraphic units do not provide useful insight into earth history beyond giving us a relative time scale. Concerning lithostratigraphy in general, megasequences sensu stricto seem to be real phenomena. However, with the possible exception of the Cambrian, there may be no relationship between the litho- and bio-stratigraphic columns. This suggests that the order in which the Flood buried fossils bore no relationship to fluctuations in Flood energy. At the same time, strong fluctuations in NLSSS values indicate that the fossil record shows strong biozonation. These fluctuations may even be episodic. Such biozonation probably provides valuable information about both biogeography and burial processes before, during, and after the Flood. This paper suggests a number of future research projects. For example, the Precambrian-Cambrian NLSSS zone should be re-evaluated at the genus and family levels. We believe this will provide an effective test of Austin and Wise’s (1994) hypothesis of the pre-Flood/ Flood boundary at the Tonian/Cryogenian boundary. We believe it will also advance theories about the role of Creation Week versus antediluvian processes in generating Precambrian sediments. Combining such a reanalysis with lithologic data, will also determine if Wise’s explanation of biozonation at the edges of pre-Flood continents can be extended to explain the biostratigraphy of the entire Cambrian. Flood sediments should also be re-evaluated while teasing apart ‘true’ marine vs. floating forest vs. ‘true’ terrestrial organisms. This reanalysis should provide a test of both Wise’s (1994) floating forest hypothesis and this paper’s suggestion that the Flood transitioned from the oceans to the land sometime in the Pennsylvanian-Permian NLSSS biozone. The entire stratigraphic column should also be reanalyzed separating marine and terrestrial organisms. We expect such a reanalysis should provide another criterion for identifying both the pre-Flood/Flood and Flood/post-Flood boundaries. The latter study should be supplemented with a geologic study of the extensive Eurasian mountain system to test this paper’s claim that the marine sediments in those mountains were actually laid down in post-Flood continental shelf sediments (and raised by WISE and RICHARDSON Biostratigraphic continuity and earth history 2023 ICC 623
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=