so steve, what is the evidence that you gave the kids, that Darwinism is true....other than you, and most scientists subscribing to that assertion. what sources did you give them, so they could check for themselves?....other than origins,-of which Darwin himself conceded that the data presented could be otherwise interpreted.

shimrod- big deal! so dawkins demolishes some creationist woman on a chat show. that is dawkins style. he wont debate creation scientists lest he give some credence to creationism as a worthwhile POV, and then tackles easy meat creationists lacking the science background to rebuff him.
meanwhile ,you his desciple want me to read his book but you wont give me one good argument contained therein. in fact the only argument you give is the who made God challenge. I have answered this previously, but not to your satisfaction...as if anything would be.......
so again, not for your benefit but anyone else that may want to know the Christian reasoning on the matter...
as someone above pointed out, the infinite regression idea is part of the argument for God. your error is the insistence that he has to be made, and consist of some kind of material.
leaving aside whether his existence can be proved or not, I venture that a deity who is spirit and greater in power, creating all else that is , is at least a logical concept ,if not opposed by fanatical unbelief.
compare that to your belief that all came from nothing via no one, in defiance of experimental science that demonstrates the impossibility of that....amounting to a miracle without a miracle maker!

stu..if you think that employing multiple dating methods establishes dating accuracy, I could give some examples where evolutionists themselves argue over them. I even wrote a song about one example. its called "mungo man".
if radio carbon aint supposed to be detectable and it is, does it really matter how many other tests you run?. the paradigm is driving the science that hopes to account for what "the laws of chemistry tell us" already . the logical assessment would be to say these bones cant possibly be 60-80myo, until such time as demonstrated otherwise.
and just to be clear, I do not rail against scientific methods, and am glad to hear how such were employed on the charred MS. useful for dating more recent historical items , but I suspect, giving more suspect results as you reach further back ,where there are more uncertainties, and assumptions have to be employed.