http://www.geocreationism.com/2007/09/21/zircons-revisited/ Geocreationism - Showing harmony between mainstream science and scripture Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:07:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 http://www.geocreationism.com/2007/09/21/zircons-revisited/#comment-290 Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:11:16 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2007/09/21/zircons-revisited/#comment-290 [...] On the contrary, in discovering (in my opinion) Geocreationism, I actually did quite the opposite.  For example, I know that Day 1 says there were oceans before land, while most scientific writings say there was land before oceans.  However, I stubbornly searched through the science for any possibility that there were oceans before land and found fairly recent research (2001) in the authoritative “Nature” publication that strongly suggested (if not proved) that the oceans came first.  I wrote of this research in detail in my posts > ~3.9 Ga” href=”http://geocreationism.com/2006/11/16/genesis-12-39-ga/” rel=”bookmark”>Genesis 1:2 >> ~3.9 Ga and AnswersInGenesis.com - How Some Creationists Discard Science: Zircons revisited. [...] […] On the contrary, in discovering (in my opinion) Geocreationism, I actually did quite the opposite.  For example, I know that Day 1 says there were oceans before land, while most scientific writings say there was land before oceans.  However, I stubbornly searched through the science for any possibility that there were oceans before land and found fairly recent research (2001) in the authoritative “Nature” publication that strongly suggested (if not proved) that the oceans came first.  I wrote of this research in detail in my posts > ~3.9 Ga” href=”http://geocreationism.com/2006/11/16/genesis-12-39-ga/” rel=”bookmark”>Genesis 1:2 >> ~3.9 Ga and AnswersInGenesis.com - How Some Creationists Discard Science: Zircons revisited. […]

]]> http://www.geocreationism.com/2007/09/21/zircons-revisited/#comment-230 Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:55:31 +0000 http://www.geocreationism.com/2007/09/21/zircons-revisited/#comment-230 [...] I previously discussed an example of how Young Earth Creationists often discard scientific evidence, due to their preconceived notions regarding a young earth.  However, their rejection of scientific discovery is not a rejection of the scientific method per se.  Or at least they do not mean it to be.  After all, Christians who argue theology are quite familiar with the idea of making arguments, supporting them with evidence, and revisiting their arguments when new evidence arises.  In fact, they do this all the time when it comes to eschatology (end time prophecy).  Yet, they seem to have blinders on when it comes to the scientific pursuit of understanding the earth’s past.  [...] […] I previously discussed an example of how Young Earth Creationists often discard scientific evidence, due to their preconceived notions regarding a young earth.  However, their rejection of scientific discovery is not a rejection of the scientific method per se.  Or at least they do not mean it to be.  After all, Christians who argue theology are quite familiar with the idea of making arguments, supporting them with evidence, and revisiting their arguments when new evidence arises.  In fact, they do this all the time when it comes to eschatology (end time prophecy).  Yet, they seem to have blinders on when it comes to the scientific pursuit of understanding the earth’s past.  […]

]]>