This was an interesting, brief, concise video. The fellow supports creationism and shows why there is more evidence in favor of creationism than for macroevolutionary theory. He also points out why the "flood model" goes to the root of the Bible's authenticity.
I did watch the video and I am not going to tear it apart. I find the arguments about the flood difficult, especially living in a country where our traditional residents do not have a flood story. I do not see the flood model as attesting to the veracity of scripture. My view is that it is the encounter with Jesus that attests to the veracity of scripture, and that veracity does not need in every instance to be authenticated historical reality. It is generally argued that the Aboriginal people have lived here for something like 65,000 years. Some estimates will go as far as 100,000 years, and the most sceptical will put it around 40,000 years. I don't believe that the Professor has proved anything. I do think that Evolution is a theory and not a fact, and his arguments could be used to support that position. His proofs may have been accepted as such in the medieval period, however they don't pass muster in today's world.
Well said, @Botolph I've been outspoken in my skepticism of Evolution Theory in the past. I have argued that the historical accuracy and literal reading of Genesis is essential in forming the theological basis for our needing a Savior and that Jesus' own references to Adam and Eve recorded in the Gospel stories bolstered the need for Christians to read it as fact not just literature. Upon reflection, I think that my own psychological need for the narrative to "be true" (that is, literally and historically factual) in order for Christ and my Salvation to "be true" blinded me from the clear and convincing scientific evidence that Evolution Theory is sound and well supported. I believe there was a flood event that inspired the the story of Noah. And perhaps there was more than one. But I think it extremely unlikely that there was literally a worldwide event that killed all land creatures except those on the ark as is described in Genesis. I can't seriously conceive that one boat could carry anywhere from 7,000 (the Ark Encounter website's estimate) to nearly 40,000 (from Got Question's website) land creatures in it for 370 days without losing one animal. Creatures that would need fresh water, food, space, waste removal, and more. All tended to by 8 humans. I also never understood why seven of each clean animal were brought on board and only two of the unclean animals when God did not permit humans to eat ANY animals until after the flood. Following up on @Botolph's points. Why are there animals in Australia that do not exist anywhere else in the world if they rode on the ark during the flood? I could understand it if there were animals in Europe, Asia, and Africa that were not in Australia. There is an ocean separating the continent from where the ark finally landed. But for there to be so many creatures found exclusively in Australia argues against the idea that they rode on the ark that made landfall on Mt Ararat.
I think Madagascar and the Galápagos archipelago are another example of that particular problem question for whole Earth flood enthusiasts to grapple with, but will they? I think not! Was there a pair of fossas or kangaroos in the ark, and would fossas and kangaroos have been clean or unclean? .