Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"So, no, these would not qualify in a judicial system. Any person who has ever taken a class in trials would note the many objectionable (in the legal sense) aspects of the bible" I was not stating it was going to stand up in our courts. I was stating that an eyewitness is seen as credible. Obviously we can't question them (which I addressed in my previous post). Regardless, their testimony is written. You assume they are exaggerating, yet you speak from conjecture with no basis to make these assumptions. You assume they are lying because you refuse to 'believe' the existence of God. "a trail of chimp to human evolution suggests that man evolved from monkeys, not made by G-d." Well it's generally assumed of the ape super family. Regardless, the evidence to prove evolution is extremely flawed at best. "fossil timelines suggest that animals appeared on land before they appeared in air" The timelines suggest that, but the evidence doesn't. "Carbon dating suggests that the Earth was formed in 740 million years, not 7 days" Basic research would tell you that C14 dating wouldn't apply to something that old. All secular scientists even agree on it. In regards to your "light of the moon" question. "To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up” (Strong’s 0215).1 To demonstrate this word picture, imagine that someone uses a mirror to reflect light in your eyes. The ultimate source of the light is not the mirror, but the mirror appears bright to you because you’re on the receiving end of the reflection." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/28/contradictions-by-the-light-of-the-moon  The translation of the Hebrew must be taken into account. In English the translators of the KJV were not specific on what the actual source of the light would be. This does not mean there is an error in the original Hebrew. "physical laws of gravity suggest that the sun emerged eons before the earth, not 4 days after it" And how do your secular scientists determine this? The laws of gravity don't apply to the origin of the universe. What actually applies is the law of cause and effect as well as thermodynamics. "Many stars are much, much brighter than the sun (a 'great light')" A great light, not the greatest light. "with so many holes in the bible, it can hardly be used as a reasonable book from which to observe anything as true." What holes are these? I addressed your contentions, what else do you want to know? One thing you have to ask yourself. Can the natural sciences tell you the origin of the universe? The answer is no profoundly. According the the laws of thermodynamics "no new matter or energy is created", energy is simply recycled by the law of conservation. The law of cause and effect state that "all effects must have a cause, whether it be known or unknown". Due to this, all causes must trace back to a first cause. So I ask you, what was the first cause? You can't say Big Bang because matter and energy can't create themselves. This would violate thermodynamics, thus you would have to nullify the natural sciences. Which would lead to the supernatural, and that would bring us to creation.