If you're going to debate creationists you've got to set up the ground rules for what constitutes evidence. Testimonies of the dead rising, whether in the Bible or youngearth's mother-in-law, do not count as evidence. If he's going to allow a 2,000 year old document of questionable reliability to constitute evidence, then why not allow for any other holy book to count as evidence? What makes the Bible so special? And how is anyone supposed to be able to tell what happened with his mother-in-law? This could be a lie, a medical mystery with a natural explanation, a misunderstanding, etc. REAL evidence is that which has been subjected to peer review, tested and re-tested.
Science. It works. Bitches.
Also, as to the guy's point about other Christians struggling with these questions, so what? Many former Christians who became atheists also struggled with these questions. This appears to be a common logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority ("If C.S. Lewis asked this question and still believed, then it must be true!"). In the realm of evidence, however, authority is practically meaningless. Arguments should stand on their own merits. And frankly, the typical Christian responses just don't cut it. They demand intellectual dishonesty or belief in an illogical, immoral god, despite any evidence of his existence.
I would love to ask if any of them have ever read any published non-Christian's take on some of these questions. Most of the Christians I know have only read what other Christians have to say. Nowadays if a Christian asks me to read a book in an effort to win me back to the faith I tell them I will, if they'll read a book that I recommend by a non-Christian. Few take me up on it.
"And you, you've gone too far this time; you have neither reason nor rhyme; from which to take this soul that is so rightfully mine." - Mumford and Sons