I don't favor YEC or OEC. I guess both can be called creation science. An oxymoron is a phrase that seems contradictory, but I doubt if anything can be scientifically proven to be an oxymoron, because I think oxymorons are subjective. To be a science a subject must be falsifiable. Agreed? Can creation be falsified? If there is an omniscient being, then to that being, yes, everything is probably falsifiable.
Creationists seem to have good evidence that the continents, or at least the granite under the Grand Canyon, is not over about 8,000 years old, based on the rate of loss of helium from zircons. Robert Gentry, a physicist, I think, found from radiohaloes in granite that granite crystalized almost instantly, instead of over millions of years. But the rest of the Earth could still be much older. So the continents could be young and the Earth old. My friend, Charles Chandler, calculated that the Earth can't be much over 300 million years old, based on heat loss from radioactive decay. But I think it could be as little as a few ten thousand years old.
Two different theories of how the continents formed seem plausible to me. One theory is that a Moon-sized granitic asteroid soft-landed on Earth and spread out like a pancake, but hardened before forming a layer all around the globe. That was the supercontinent, Pangaea. Another theory is that a large planet was close to Earth when it was molten and one side of Earth faced that planet and the lighter granitic magma floated to the surface and congregated under the planet, forming Pangaea. I favor that theory a bit more than the first one. There is mythological evidence that Saturn, Venus & Mars were formerly close to Earth, all in a line.
