i note the ham vidio..link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxX11c1cSWU

[BUT A FULL TRANSCRIPT/of BOTH SIDES..would serve us all far better]
regardless..ham..makes the key point..some abuse kids..by telling them..what to think[rather than how..to think]

so lets hear..the truth..let us decide based on facts
one side claims facts..[those supporting the theory..OF EVOLUTION]
us creationists say god dun it..its up to science to find out how]..and if how refutes god..so be it]

but if you cant explain/the facts
you just got faith..compare my faith with your faith[same with same]

now..we live in an expanding universe[true/faulse?]
the matter..contained..in the universe..looks roughly/like a cell]
with seemingly..infinite nuclious[suns]..thing is the first living cell is huge/the size of our universe..in fact

lets call that first life alpha/or god or whatever
science cant explain..the process of bang[no likely cause]
bIBLE SAYS GOD SPAKE..TILL SCIENCE SAYS DIFFERENT..I WILL TAKE THE WORDS IN WRITING[OVER THEORY WITH PICTURES ON YOUTUBE]

REGARDLESS..you claIM..THINKING XTIANS RATE HIGHER IN INTELIGENCE[YOUR WITH THE CLEVer guys[well jesus did say..this is satans realm..and the serphant..even decieved our gullibale eve/sp why not you.

anyhow..put some thinking into it..AND NAME THE SCIENCE..OF FIRST LIFE
I JUST EXPLAINED IT ON THE GOD MACRO/ALPHA LEVEL..now give me the scaled down version

how did life begin..on earth?
what was this first living being..by species/genus]
name the proof..[dna?]..by which it evolved into the next genus

i know you aint got that level of thinking
cause you been taught..what to think
not how to think

2b ctd

but you think wrong..prove you can think..by saying right here now
how it realy went down..or be revealed the faithful..to others thought[ie a god-free delusion]

its funny..your leader is an engeneer/not a biol;ogist nor evolutionist/not GENETICIST..NOR EVEN FOSSIL EXPERT/HE DONT DO RADIOACTIVE CARBON DATING..NOR EVEN EVER BREED TWO LIVING THINGS TOGETHER TO TEST HIS KNOWLEDGE..CAUSE HE LACKS..TRUE..GNOSIS[KNOWING]

RULE ONE[THIS IS SATANS REALM]
RULE TWO DECEIVERS ABOUND
rule 3 think/relax enjoy..trust god to do the rest

GODS WILI IS ..is for us to find our own will[to know for sure/because we lived it/this you know for sure/the rest is 'other'..helpers as much as deceivers
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6207&page=0

god is one to one
live time..all the time

IF You cant explain iT..YOU DONT HAVE CLAIM TO CLEVER
THINKING OR Unthinking..you take it on faith[its the blind leading the blind]

name names
REPLICATE..OR GET YE BEHIND ME SATAn

god dun it all
indeed still does all
[all them so called automatic response..SUSTAINING YOU YOUR EVERY BREATH..That's god..[or rather the holy spirit]..cause decievers even tricked you re what god is
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0
god=light sustaining life via logic..
that life..LIVE AND LIVE BY LOVE..THAT WE WRONGLY CALL GOD=THE HOLY SPIRIT[OMNIPRESENT/ETERNAL/INFINITE..THE WAy the means..that what why and there-fore..every living being..that together reveal his being..[nature]

that we do..to the least..we do to him.

Yes this was a somewhat pathetic essay in Christian apologetics. And Chris as a Jesuit was supposedl schooled one of the elite philosophers of the "Catholic" church!

Ponder summed up the case re the complete lack of concrete evidence for the "historical Jesus" and other fables associated with the fabricated origins of the "New" Testament and Christianity.
Such is of course also the case with the tribalistic cultic fables associated with the "Old" Testament too.

Rather flimsy entirely irrational stuff upon which to base one's world-view! Stuff which has no basis in Truth & Reality, either the Truth of what we intrinsically are as human beings, and the nature of Reality altogether.
There may be some justification for "teaching" children nursery-time childhood fables about "Jesus" just as we "teach" them about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Rabbit and Santa Claus. They are a four-fold package.
Most people quickly outgrow the last three, so why not the first one about "Jesus".
But what about Genesis and the fabled Garden of Eden, and who were, or rather, ARE, Adam & Eve?
Many (even most) Christians still pretend that the Garden of Eden was a specific historical place and that Adam & Eve were "real historical" persons.
This essay provides a unique esoteric Understanding of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Indestructible Light - which is where we ARE right NOW, and each and every human being always has been too. http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html

Which also raises the very important question as to where does the Revelation of Truth come from?
This essay points out where and from whom such Revelation's have always (and only) come from. http://www.dabase.org/up-4-1.htm

Finally: http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself

@DKit: 'I see [the Bible] entirely as a story with parts based on real people and facts.'

I don't think anybody disputes that. The problem is deciding which parts. If you believe it's a 'real fact' that God ordered practicing homosexuals to be stoned to death, for instance, that's going to produce rather different behaviour than if you believe this is nonsense, and that the 'real fact' is that we should love our neighbours as ourselves. The trouble is that people who believe the second on purely religious principles have no arguments with which to respond to people who believe the first.

If your morality comes purely from the parts of the Bible that you pick and choose to follow, you have no grounds on which to criticise people who pick and choose their own bits of the Bible, or of other allegedly holy books, to follow instead. Between you and the people in Pakistan who recently stoned an adulterous couple to death, there's not a hair's breadth of moral difference. They just chose to cherry-pick bits of a different holy book.

under one dog can you leave the caps lock alone and settle down. of what I can read the answer is from a science point of view at least "we don't know but we are investigating".

The moment you start a sentence with "I do believe" you bring out the incompatibility of faith and science.