http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/ Geocreationism - Showing harmony between mainstream science and scripture Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:38:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-217 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:39:22 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-217 [...] In Effect of Zircon Discovery on other Early-Earth Theories, I wrote about the scientific evidence for geological conditions that completely match the Genesis account of what conditions were on Day 1 (the earth was formless and void, covred in water and darkness, waters above connected to waters below, no celestial bodies visible). The primary discovery on my part was a 2001 research article on how the discovery of zircon crystals might change our understanding of earth’s early history before 3.9 billion years ago.  I had never heard of zircon crystals before, and was thrilled when they explained why scripture’s description of the earth was correct. For similar reasons, I was also quite surprised when I happened on this 1995 article criticising the use of zircon crystals in aging the earth: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp.  Hmmm… that article was 6 years before the study I cited.  “Oh,” I thought to myself, “was this just a repackaging of junk science from 1986? I hope not.”   If it was, then I would come clean about; but if not?  Well, I purchased the article and read it… several times.  What I found confirmed what I already believed about how many YECs discard science. [...] […] In Effect of Zircon Discovery on other Early-Earth Theories, I wrote about the scientific evidence for geological conditions that completely match the Genesis account of what conditions were on Day 1 (the earth was formless and void, covred in water and darkness, waters above connected to waters below, no celestial bodies visible). The primary discovery on my part was a 2001 research article on how the discovery of zircon crystals might change our understanding of earth’s early history before 3.9 billion years ago.  I had never heard of zircon crystals before, and was thrilled when they explained why scripture’s description of the earth was correct. For similar reasons, I was also quite surprised when I happened on this 1995 article criticising the use of zircon crystals in aging the earth: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp.  Hmmm… that article was 6 years before the study I cited.  “Oh,” I thought to myself, “was this just a repackaging of junk science from 1986? I hope not.”   If it was, then I would come clean about; but if not?  Well, I purchased the article and read it… several times.  What I found confirmed what I already believed about how many YECs discard science. […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-48 Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:22:10 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-48 [...] Question: Geologically speaking, was there a time in earth’s history when a condition prevented there from being light?  Not specifically.  Geologically speaking, there has always been light upon the earth.  However, if we go back to when the earth had little to no atmosphere, we would see that even in the light, the sky was dark.  As we’ll see below, it was also very cloudy and was probably raining.  In addition, the sun was pretty dim compared to now.  Taken together, to an observer looking at the oceans, one would in fact see “darkness on the face of the deep.”  This begs 2 questions: 1)Was there such an observer? 2)Was there ever a situation preventing the darkness over the deep from disappearing? [...] […] Question: Geologically speaking, was there a time in earth’s history when a condition prevented there from being light?  Not specifically.  Geologically speaking, there has always been light upon the earth.  However, if we go back to when the earth had little to no atmosphere, we would see that even in the light, the sky was dark.  As we’ll see below, it was also very cloudy and was probably raining.  In addition, the sun was pretty dim compared to now.  Taken together, to an observer looking at the oceans, one would in fact see “darkness on the face of the deep.”  This begs 2 questions: 1)Was there such an observer? 2)Was there ever a situation preventing the darkness over the deep from disappearing? […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-27 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:56:07 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-27 [...] “darkness” With a thin atmosphere and dim sun, the sky was not bright like today.  It was dark, and with only oceans to speak of, the sky’s darkness could be seen upon the deep from any point in the world… within the sunlight and without. [...] […] “darkness” With a thin atmosphere and dim sun, the sky was not bright like today.  It was dark, and with only oceans to speak of, the sky’s darkness could be seen upon the deep from any point in the world… within the sunlight and without. […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-26 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:52:23 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2006/12/03/26/#comment-26 [...] We also know that the sky was dark, even up to 3.9 Ga. According to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “At Epoch 0 (3.9 billion years ago), the young Earth possessed a turbulent, steamy atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. The days were shorter and the Sun was dimmer [than today], shining as a red orb through our orange brick-colored sky. The one ocean that covered our entire planet was a muddy brown that absorbed bombardment from incoming meteors and comets. Carbon dioxide helped warm our world since the infant Sun was a third less luminous than today. Although no fossils survived from this time period, isotopic signatures of life may have been left behind in Greenland rocks.” [...] […] We also know that the sky was dark, even up to 3.9 Ga. According to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “At Epoch 0 (3.9 billion years ago), the young Earth possessed a turbulent, steamy atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. The days were shorter and the Sun was dimmer [than today], shining as a red orb through our orange brick-colored sky. The one ocean that covered our entire planet was a muddy brown that absorbed bombardment from incoming meteors and comets. Carbon dioxide helped warm our world since the infant Sun was a third less luminous than today. Although no fossils survived from this time period, isotopic signatures of life may have been left behind in Greenland rocks.” […]

]]>