The question for Scripture is whether it can be reconciled with billions of years of evolution - which presupposes an old earth. Discussing the "evidence" (eg, the fossil and geological records) that has led to the conclusion of billions of years of evolution and an old earth is irrelevant to the topic. Incidentally, an old earth is possible in my literal interpretation of Genesis 1, as it seems that "the heavens and earth" (v.1) were created before the "light" that marks the beginning of Day 1 (v.3). So there is no need to torture the obvious exegesis (Ie, six literal days) to accommodate an old earth. No, it's actually more like ... it's easily the most reasonalbe interpretation of the texts. It is for this reason that the vast majority of early Church Fathers believed in a literal interpretation (it also explains why thesitic evolutions love to selectively cite Augustine on this matter - he was of the very few ECFs who was open to a non-literal interpreatation). Perhaps a theistic evolutionist like yourself can explain how Gen 2:7 can be interpreted in such a way that Adam evolved from a pre-existing creature, when it clearly states that Adam was created from inanimate matter.