Its so pleasant to see a believer who is knowledgeable about evolution for a change.

A well-balanced, fair assessment of evolution (finally).

I have a hard time making coherent sense of any side. On the one hand, there seem to be a number of pieces of evidence the universe and the earth are old, and I don't know a clearcut refutation of them all. On the other hand, natural processes cannot create information, so nature clearly requires intelligent intervention to produce what we have today. On the third hand, an old universe does not jive with the most clearcut reading of the Bible, nor does it jive with Jesus believing Adam and Eve were real people, nor the whole fall narrative, nor does it make sense for such an enormous amount of suffering to occur pre-fall. On the fourth hand, scientists are very defensive if anyone questions the ancient universe, evolution narrative, which makes me suspect they are not trying hard to give a balanced view. On the fifth hand, the evidence for evolution is pretty bad, there are numerous mathematical and statistical errors, and even outright frauds in the history of the science. On the sixth hand, evolution is not really a science, since no one can go back in time millions of years to see it happen, and nothing today supports it happening, not even microbiological adaptation. On the seventh hand, it's hard to consistently read the Bible as a science book, since a lot of it is clearly framed in terms of a flat earth with a dome over the top (and there's nothing that indicates a spherical earth), which even tripped up early church fathers like Augustine and others who thought the Bible might be describing a flat earth and should be taken literally, so it's hard to know what is meant to be read a literal facts in the Bible vs metaphorical of something else (are we really supposed to eat Jesus?). On the eighth hand, it is not clear what actually counts as evidence of age, since what might take one process an unimaginable long time, like evolving a silicon chip in the desert through forces of wind and rain, is achieved almost in no time, like creating a silicon chip in a lab, so we could be misinterpreting what appears to us to take a great deal of time when it might take no time at all for another process. Bottom line, it's all very confusing to me, and I don't know why anyone thinks the answer is obvious.

In the end, it's not the idea of God but religion that is the problem.

Honestly I just reccomend everyone to look into William Lane Craig’s research on the historical Adam.

Platinga is a Calvinist but most of his arguments are in favor of Catholicism.

Is this video made for children, lol?

Accepting evolutionary macro narration destroys gospel of substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. Because if evolution is true then death is not a penalty. If the death is not a penalty for sins death of Christ on the cross looses its meaning as bearing penalty for our sins. Thus the gospel itself is destroyed. Besides what kind of god would need hundreds of millions of years of bloodshed starvation and diseases to produce all of the variety of his planned creation. Thus YEC position is the only God honoring one.