Do you believe in god?

"as it may seem to someone who is simply accepting what he has always heard"

I've watched dozens of debates on the subject. Simply accepting isn't accurate. I've never seen nor heard a single argument presented by a creationist that in any way was at all convincing. As for Dr. Gish, every one of his points is easily refuted given enough time. He just throws out so many wrong ideas in such a short amount of time that it's impossible to cover every one of them.

"Can a universe just suddenly appear, out of the blue?"

Considering the fact that our universe seemingly has a net energy of zero, it does seem quite possible. I will grant that it does seem unlikely that another universe will suddenly sprout within this one.

"Plus, the law of entropy defies the Big Bang"

Trying to use laws that are a function of this universe to disprove things that happened before it isn't effective. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about or why entropy is somehow involved in this. I assume you mean the second law of thermodynamics but that isn't contradicted. So far as we can tell, the universe started in a tiny little ball that suddenly expanded, eventually coalesced into matter, which gravity pulled into groups, various nuclear reactions occurred generating the heavier elements, some of these groups of matter (stars) exploded, planets finally formed, geological events occurred to shape the earth into a life bearing planet, abiogenesis happened, life evolved using the sun or occasionally chemicals as its energy source, and eventually we came along.

"Order does not come from chaos, ever"

The sun.

"How many times has a hurricane or TNT gone through a junkyard and left behind a 747? Never, and we can safely say that it never will."

That's true. It's a very nice sound byte. It also doesn't really say much of anything. I'm assuming this is criticism of abiogenesis and so I'll address that as well. I won't pretend to fully understand the intricacies of the system that scientists seem to agree led to life, but I do know some of the basics. Apparently when life formed, the oceans were teeming with amino acids and various lipid compounds. The fact is, this is about all the very first cell would have really even had. Self-replication is the only real requirement for this first form of life. For a more apt metaphor it would be more accurate to ask how many times has a hurricane or TNT gone through every junkyard in the world that are all filled with 747 parts and happened to result in something that can function? The fact is that life could have developed many different ways as biochemists are always trying to come up with and so the chances increase further. Add to this the absolutely mind-boggling time scale we are working with here and life does not seem to absurd a notion.

"The 4 gospels do not contradict each other, they are simply 4 different points of view on the same events."

There are quite obvious factual discrepancies between the gospels. Where was Jesus born? Who found his tomb empty? Here's a chart showing the accounts of the resurrection side-by-side.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm

"That's because not all of the disciples were present to witness every event that took place"

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the names of the Gospels, not the authors themselves. This is accepted even by Christians.

"Ummm, God blesses everyone in this life"

...Tell that to the African children starving to death that never even have heard of your God.
"If you diss God while He's blessing you in this life, then yes, God will punish you in the afterlife"

I am quite glad we don't judge criminals based on your God's rules then. For the crime of not believing, the punishment is eternal torture. Does that not seem slightly insane? A just god would deliver punishments that fit the crime, not punishments that no crime could ever justify. I wouldn't even say Hitler or Stalin did enough to justify eternal torture.

"Christianity is actually one of the least impositional of any religion."

Just because you're not getting your way doesn't mean that you're not imposing.

1-4 I see you're a follower of Ken Ham.

Let me explain how science actually works in finding things out about the world, because many people seem to think it a lot more exotic than it really is. Scientists work by making observations about the natural world and then positing explanations of mechanisms that caused what they observed. They now have a hypothesis.

Next, they attempt to formulate an experiment to test their hypothesis and collect data. They then compare their data to what would be expected given their hypothesis and either accept or reject their hypothesis. Pretty basic stuff.

So how does this allow us to learn things about the past or about things we cannot directly observe? We simply use the information and collection of accepted hypotheses that support our currently supported theories and look backwards through time. Let's take gravity for example. We know via quite extensive testing that most places on Earth have a gravitational force of approximately 9.81 m/s^2. We also know that this force varies depending on various circumstances such as altitude and marginally air density. This lead to the development of equations that could accurately predict the gravitational force as a function of time, distance between objects, and their masses.

These equations, when coupled with the findings that the galaxies all are moving away from each other from a central point, then allowed physicists to actually calculate an age of the universe since all matter seems to have been focused on one point. This calculation has since been modified to account for the presence of dark energy which is speeding up the galaxies.

In short, our observations today are what allow us to infer what happened yesterday. We're hurtling through space at a million miles an hour? Something must have set us in motion. It's really quite simple.

If you want to get into the particulars of what happened in those first few moments, I would suggest either talking to a physicist or simply reading up on the subject. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to try to explain the subject. Particle physics is not quite my forte.