It is very difficult to refute the geological record. Dust of the earth is certainly a “non-human” “parent”. The Bible says nothing about Adam being created as an old man that I know of. And God may have made Adam as intended to be deathless but his sin of disobedience changed that
“... Adam being created as an old man ...”
You misunderstand. I wrote about Adam being created “with the appearance of age” — God created Adam as “a man” from the dust of the earth, and on his first day of life, when God first breathed life into this man, he appeared to have some years on him. Perhaps he appeared to be 13 or 17 or 21. Of course we don’t know. But we do know that on Adam’s first day of life, he wasn’t a helpless newborn baby, but “a man.”
The fact that man was created *first*, and then woman was crafted out of man *second*, is a foundational concept in Scripture. Paul’s writings lean on this truth, for example.
It really does seem that you have to twist a whole lot to defend an evolutionary interpretation of creation. And believing in evolution causes so many biblical doctrines to fall apart, to have no foundation, to be baseless.
If death preceded sin, for example, then God is a liar. The whole of Scripture rests on the fact that sin results in death, and Jesus’ entire ministry rests on the fact that He is the solution for the problems of sin and death.
You sincerely believe that the earth was populated by many non-human almost-human creatures, and that at one point in the generations, one human male and one human female emerged (each with apish, non-human parents)? Or is the account of the man Adam and the woman Eve simply an allegory?
As far as “the geological record” ... a catastrophic global flood — one that begins with the “all the fountains of the great deep” bursting forth, followed by torrential rains — would explain much of what we see. But that’s another conversation.