teddyv

In summary: Nothing it knowable and reality is unreliable.

Had a quick look regarding replenishing of wells and I see no indication of that replenishment of "new " oil. Rather, it is more likely that the extraction of the main oil bearing trap is subsequently refilled from other oil bearing strata due to pressure differential. Also, with the advent of newer methods and technologies such as fracking, formerly producing areas could be revisited to access previously non recoverable resources.

I'll have a look. (Edited to add - I see the heading, but I don't see an article) I don't accept Gap as a literal historical narrative of the early earth. I think there is some potential value when viewing the Genesis narrative as an early cosmology held by the Hebrews. @FreeGrace, while I don't embrace his view, brought up some interesting textural use of the "formless and void" which further convinces me we are dealing with story-telling and worldview building first and foremost, rather than a treatise on the how and when of these things - theology before all else.

This is not an either/or proposition. There are alternative interpretations that honour the text, while not conflicting with the general revelation. Creationists create ad hoc solutions to problems, but rarely take the next step of ensuring their solution does not conflict or contradict their other solutions to other problems. Right now, biological evolution is the best explanatory framework for the diversity of life on earth. That does not mean it is right, but that it's the best current one. There are creationists scientists working on potential models (ICR is into something called continuous environmental tracking). AiG and CMI both accept natural selection and mutation as mechanisms for adaptation and speciation, both part of the suite of known evolutionary mechanisms. I assume they also accept the other mechanisms as well since they are well evidenced and observed.

If your view that Creation and the Flood were wholly supernatural events then I don't have much argument with you. But here you are making testable claims of ark capacity to hold all of the created kinds (which are rather arbitrarily designed, likely to get the conclusion needed - to fit on the ark), that then somehow speciated into the orders of magnitude more species, while also having even more species going extinct in the last 4400 years. So it's not just about populating, but also extinction.

Other than teaching that the Bible describes a great Flood (true), any of their suggested mechanisms are grossly inadequate ad hoc explanations of what we see in the world around us.

Young or old, the earth contains all the resources it has (excepting the occasional meteor impact). That's not really up to debate. Concentration of the these metals and minerals into economic resources for extraction is another matter. Would not a mature creation view essentially say that every copper deposit, gold deposit, lithium deposit was created in place, as-is? But we see the processes that concentrate and create mineral deposits in action today (black and white smokers, hydrothermal activity at Lihir/Ladolam gold deposit).

That source seems like a lot of different voices making various claims including the ones you included, but many others contrary so I'm not sure that is a particularly great source.

This is why I said earlier that it is a literary symbol or allusion. It does not represent an actual historical state of the universe or earth. This is language that is consistent with the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews, as well as their contemporaries. Bringing and applying any modern concept to this language is adding to the text.

I'm not sure I follow what you are seeking to clarify. The chaos is the starting condition, nothingness, if you will.

Or maybe is a literary allusion to primordial chaos...

No ice age mentioned in Genesis 1. Or anywhere else recorded in the Bible.

Funny how back in the Bill Clinton days, the cons were all about character.

As I recall, Mar-a-Lago has a series of covenants or restrictions on it that forbid development, hence it will never be as valuable as land that can be redeveloped or repurposed.

This number is a "statistically likely" event value. It's not a cycle that occurs every 284,000 years. Here's the Live Science article from which the OP was drawn. I cannot seem to locate anything like a source paper.