Okay, this is a big topic and I have a tendency to write massive posts when talking, so I'll try to stay focused and start getting a foundation for my views here.
I'm a Christian, and with regards to the mechanism or mechanisms that God used to create us and everything else, I'm agnostic - that is, I believe God created us, but HOW He did so is something I'm open to discussing, and my own views are basically that the two accounts in Genesis are true, but mainly poetic and not NECESSARILY literal, and indeed probably are figurative, instead illustrating an idea.
I'm 31, but if you had asked me five years ago the order of events in the days of Creation, I would have had to look it up because it seemed so random to me, yet obviously I did not think it WAS random, only the sequence didn't have a pattern that I could see, yet God is a God of order. Now if you ask me, I can tell you straight away, because the poetic pattern is illustrated simply: three days of making places, and three days of making inhabitants, and three stages to each, and one day of declaring it complete (a null terminator, to use a computing term). And in each day there are at least two types of inhabitants, and mankind is represented as being of two types, both in the image of God, and both are the final things God created.
So, using the term universe to mean from a human perspective, especially prior to a more general understanding of nature.
* Day 1: The outermost universe created (Light), and both bright light for the day, and lesser light for night. Paired with Day 4: inhabitants for the outermost universe, being stars, the sun, the moon. This is one of the big problems a lot of people have with Genesis, saying there was light before the sun, but if one remembers this isn't necessarily being presented as created so much as it is being revealed, the mist clearing away to reveal the source of light, it could be seen to match modern understanding.
* Day 2: the outer universe created, or rather boundary around where humans and animals would inhabit, being air and sea, and a distinction made between them. Paired with Day 5: birds and fish.
* Day 3: the nearby universe created, being dry ground and plants. Paired with Day 6: animals and humans, with humans explicitly the last beings created.
* Day 7: God rests, or literally stopped - the language doesn't imply being tired, only declaring the task done.
I could go on, and I want to, but I need to bring this around to the topic of the video - though a key thing to remember is immediately after this there is a second account that seems to contradict the first, but actually builds upon it. Another is that dust might not literally be dust but rather a statement that man is made from both physical matter (a body made of the material of the universe), spiritual matter (the breath of God), and a soulish matter (the union of the two - "man became a living soul"), and so man is uniquely qualified to work the garden, as God intended man to do.
One thing I always disagreed with when hearing people who disagree with evolution - not just challenging ideas behind it or our current understanding but stating it can't work - is saying you can't gain information from nothing. I disagree with that assessment because it isn't getting information from nothing, it is getting information from the system finding a stable state. Like pouring small balls into a box and shaking, some will fall into a tetrahedral formation and back tightly together, the box doesn't contain any tetrahedrons, but the balls will still settle into that state as a stable formation that backs them tightly together. This is, in many ways the same idea I think the presenter was getting at when talking about convergent evolution - effective forms will emerge that match what is needed - if you give something the ability to reproduce and to change slightly, those that are better able to reproduce in that environment will begin to outnumber those that aren't assuming there aren't external factors.
... I've taking up quiet a few paragraphs and haven't really covered the topic yet. Lets briefly jump to a related topic and when you respond lets see if we can combine these together to make a robust and solid discussion.
A point he made repeatedly was that this idea of platonic ideals emerging. One thing I think is important to note is that, as numbers are an example of platonic objects, one cannot hold a number, or break a number and lose it. One can hold five of something, but never hold "five", etc. And yet, despite being outside of our ability to physically interact with them, numbers are arguably able to exist in more universes than the things we regularly interact with are. We can imagine universes where physical matter behaves differently such that galaxies never form or all matter is bound inside of giant cold stars, but even in those worlds numbers would still exist - assuming you believe numbers don't require human minds, or minds, to think of them. Yet then we could also say then that triangles would still exist so long as that universe has at least two dimensions, and if we start to doubt triangles could do so, why do we think anything could exist in them at all - after all, if a triangle is only a triangle if there is something there to declare it a triangle, why would a universe exactly like our own have stars if no-one is there to declare something is such?
If platonic objects can exist outside of a universe like ours, is the existence of those objects - in thought experiments only as there is no scientific evidence that there are other universes - proof that those ideals exist in entirely unique types of worlds, and the properties of those worlds shaping others?
A claim he made was that if the clocks were allowed to run again - and presumably the system was changed slightly, after all if I rewatch a video I wouldn't expect anything to have changed if the same file is used, the same frames exactly, or a simulation with the exact same starting conditions and no randomness - and the universe played out again with the existing rules, we would emerge again, though possibly from another branch of life. This I think is a key point of contention, especially due to his certainty that life would emerge again, and indeed he states that life seems to be endemic to this universe. That I think is a point to argue.
What are your thoughts on it?
[Edit] Also, hope you are having a great day!
