I'm curious to hear why you think most creation-believing people are victims of conartists? I like your comment about the apostles that they died for what they knew first hand vs what they believed. Yes, they knew Christ Jesus. They walked with Him side-by-side to the places they traveled. But they also had to be believers themselves. They didn't know how Christ calmed the storm when they were on the boat, they didn't know how Christ healed the sick, and they didn't know how Christ caused the fig tree to whither. These apostles were amazed to see what He did. Christ even seemed to become annoyed with the apostles because at certain times, they themselves didn't understand what was going on. My point is they themselves, even though they witnessed Christ doing the things He did with their own eyes, had to believe themselves without knowing how it all happened. They had to believe themselves that He was the Son of God. The apostles could have chosen to believe He was a sorcer or a trickster, but they chose otherwise. It was still a matter of faith for them as well. C.S. Lewis made the comment, "Christ is either 1 of 3 things, He was a liar, a lunatic, or He was the Son of God".

On the note of conartists, (which i'm assuming you're considering the apostles to be in that category as well maybe?), con artists by definition are people who trick people through deception and swindling, but they do so for some sort of personal gain; whether it's money, power, etc, they're in it for something. The apostles had NOTHING to gain on the this earth by preaching and teaching the gospel. As you stated they died for what they saw and knew. They died with nothing to gain. They died as martyrs. They were persecuted and killed. Think about Paul (aka Saul) for example. He was some big shot of the Roman empire. He had wealth, he was a leader, a commander of sorts. The Roman empire was vast and wealthy. He had it made. But he changed. When Christ came to him, he gave it all up. He stopped his rein of persecuting Christians and became one. In our society today, to think a man would give up such wealth and prosperity would be nuts. But he did. So we classify him as a nut. But was he really crazy, demented? He was a very adamat man. He believed in Christ, in spreading the Gospel, he even went through the same persecutions as he once ordered others to do. Dr. John Stott made this comment: He stated, "If anything is clear from the Gospel and the Acts it is that the apostles were sincere. They may have been deceived, if you like, but they were not deceivers. Hypocrites and martyrs are not made of the same stuff".

The apostles themsevles were fishermen. Matthew was a tax collector. They were not high priests or pharisees. They were ordinary, down-to-earth individuals.

You also commented: "It is a book written by humans, with many things in it that are now known to be factually incorrect ."

Can you give 1 example of what is factually incorrect? Granted for a long time there have been questions about certain people and places in the Bible. For instance, it wasn't about in the 1980's, there was still questions about Pontius Pilate and his existence. In the 1980's they finally found Roman doctrines all about the governship of Pontius Pilate (i might be incorrect on the time frame.), but the point is that as archaeology and other professions dig further and further, they keep finding evidence towards persons and places of the Bible. There are also several external references to the life of Christ and His crucifixion. I'll be happy to cite references if you'd like. =)

Going back to authors of the Gospels, one thing to realize is that Luke, for example, didn't walk Christ as did the first 12 apostles did. He was classified as a physician and a historian. His writings were based on interviews of eye witnesses that were with Jesus during his teachings and sermons. So even Luke himself during that time never saw Christ visually, but through eye witness testimony. He didn't have that first hand experience as the first 12 apostles did. Luke was in a position where we are.. where we don't see Jesus face-to-face. He went out did the research, talked with people and presented the evidence.

Gaming with friends... real friends.... not your (xbox live or PSN friends... because we all know how true those friendships really are) can help with some gaming skill. I have found they are more willing to stand idlely by if you are attempting maneuvers and try new things... and that's great and all, but you tend to pick up on your friends' maneuvers, hiding/camping spots... so then, they're much easier to predict. We all have our own style of playing and when you play with the same people, it becomes predictable over time. I find that playing with strangers (xbox live friends) helps improve skill a whole much more than with a friend because you're exposing yourself to different styles of game play and skills. Learning to adapt to other players i think helps out a gamers skill much more than just with a friend. Now if you're talking about team play with a friend, where you're playing with a friend or friends against a team of strangers, then that i believe has the same effect when it comes to team work in that sense. But i think it still falls under the same principle that gaming with strangers gives that variety of game play to learn to adapt too. For example, i used to be heavily involved in league and tournament bowling. When you bowl in the same house, you are able to get a good feel for the lanes, oil patterns, etc.. If all you do is bowl in the same house, it's much more difficult to adapt to the lane conditions in other houses... because they take care of them differently... especially in tournament play. I knew guys who averaged above 220 in the house they're used too, but could barely break a 140 in tournament play.

For someone who lives out in the boonie's, this may be the only solution for those who need some form of communication. Very few places who can't receive cellular service, cable, dsl, etc, have to rely on the satellite service. As many of us who have ever had to work with Hughsnet or any other satellite internet service... well it blows! The reason they are not as successful as cable and dsl is because of the cost of the service, the quality is poor (by poor I mean it fluctuates from time to time), not to mention they all use this fair use bandwidth limiter that once you exceed a certain bandwidth, they take away the high speed and leave you with the bandwidth of a 14.4k datafax modem. Think XM/Sirius satellite radio. Think of Direct TV and Dish Network. Satellite phones work similar to how we get our XM radio or DirectTV. My XM satellite radio goes out everytime I enter the parking garage or go through a tunnel. And DirectTV gets flakey during a storm. The reason hughsnet stays in business is partly because of people who live out in the middle of nowhere. There are no other options for them. If hughsnet was able to increase the quality of their service, reduce rates, and remove the whole fair use bandwidth policy, they might be able to compete with cable/dsl. Same with the satellite phone. Now it may be much cheaper to put up a cell phone tower as opposed to launching a satellite in orbit, but i have yet to see anything that makes the satellite phones any better than cellular phones as far as reliability. Now that I can walk into an elevator and still talk on the phone, I wouldn't want to have to go back to saying "hold on, i'm walking in an elevator. I'll call you back" because of reduced quality.